<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_1840238</id>
	<title>Free Software To Save Us From Social Networks</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268986800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Glyn Moody writes <i>"Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom. Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years, and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL, thinks that the <a href="http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Interview-Eben-Moglen-Freedom-vs-the-Cloud-Log-955421.html">free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware+software project</a>. 'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server. [Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done. It comes up, it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it, and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts. It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.' Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " Here 's a problem for free software : most social networks are built using it , yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom .
Eben Moglen , General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years , and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL , thinks that the free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware + software project .
'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small , ARM-based , plug it into the wall , wall-wart server .
[ Such ] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price , and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet , and you 're done .
It comes up , it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it , and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications , closing all your accounts .
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends ' plugs , so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them , by having their friends holding the secure version of their data .
' Could such a plan work , or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.
Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years, and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL, thinks that the free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware+software project.
'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server.
[Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done.
It comes up, it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it, and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts.
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.
' Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546544</id>
	<title>So long facebook...</title>
	<author>nullhero</author>
	<datestamp>1269010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've already deleted my Facebook account. Got tired of all the boringness of it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already deleted my Facebook account .
Got tired of all the boringness of it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already deleted my Facebook account.
Got tired of all the boringness of it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546074</id>
	<title>Umm...</title>
	<author>DenaliPrime</author>
	<datestamp>1269005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it a bit early for April Fools?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it a bit early for April Fools ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it a bit early for April Fools?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544244</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look forward to your replies.</p></div><p>This post is exceptional in quality. The context clues were tremendously helpful. The message that you have no facebook account because you have no friends? accurately conveyed! Congratulations!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look forward to your replies.This post is exceptional in quality .
The context clues were tremendously helpful .
The message that you have no facebook account because you have no friends ?
accurately conveyed !
Congratulations !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look forward to your replies.This post is exceptional in quality.
The context clues were tremendously helpful.
The message that you have no facebook account because you have no friends?
accurately conveyed!
Congratulations!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545836</id>
	<title>SIMPLE:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269003660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add facebook-like features to XMPP, in combination with a lightweight apache (a bit like Opera Unite).<br>XMPP already supports user profiles, groups, etc (as far as i know).<br>So we&rsquo;re not far away from it.</p><p>It would be free, open, decentralized (important!), still compatible with facebook itself, and you could use your own client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add facebook-like features to XMPP , in combination with a lightweight apache ( a bit like Opera Unite ) .XMPP already supports user profiles , groups , etc ( as far as i know ) .So we    re not far away from it.It would be free , open , decentralized ( important !
) , still compatible with facebook itself , and you could use your own client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add facebook-like features to XMPP, in combination with a lightweight apache (a bit like Opera Unite).XMPP already supports user profiles, groups, etc (as far as i know).So we’re not far away from it.It would be free, open, decentralized (important!
), still compatible with facebook itself, and you could use your own client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543398</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>epp\_b</author>
	<datestamp>1268991360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think those are moot points on the basis that you post on Slashdot and claim to have a girlfriend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think those are moot points on the basis that you post on Slashdot and claim to have a girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think those are moot points on the basis that you post on Slashdot and claim to have a girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543530</id>
	<title>Appleseed</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1268991960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine, if you will, a cross between a Facebook style interface and an Apache style implementation: that is, something that will let you (as a user) connect to any other user and not give a damn about how or where, and at the same time let anyone run their own standards-compliant server with the exact settings that they prefer.</p><p>To get this right, it needs to take a long hard look at user data privacy *as the first thing*, and that's exactly what the Appleseed Project (http://appleseed.sourceforge.net) was intended to showcase.</p><p>One reason why Facebook made it big is because they got their commercial model right (don't tell anyone, but the users are actually the product, not the customers).</p><p>The trouble is not so much that an Appleseed style implementation won't work (we know it does, because that's how the whole everyman's Internet got off the ground) but that it's not a pioneering effort (citing the same example, because the crummy early-day Internet had no competition other than itself). In this day and age, such an effort needs to stack up against Facebook -- imagine Mosaic trying to get market share from Chrome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine , if you will , a cross between a Facebook style interface and an Apache style implementation : that is , something that will let you ( as a user ) connect to any other user and not give a damn about how or where , and at the same time let anyone run their own standards-compliant server with the exact settings that they prefer.To get this right , it needs to take a long hard look at user data privacy * as the first thing * , and that 's exactly what the Appleseed Project ( http : //appleseed.sourceforge.net ) was intended to showcase.One reason why Facebook made it big is because they got their commercial model right ( do n't tell anyone , but the users are actually the product , not the customers ) .The trouble is not so much that an Appleseed style implementation wo n't work ( we know it does , because that 's how the whole everyman 's Internet got off the ground ) but that it 's not a pioneering effort ( citing the same example , because the crummy early-day Internet had no competition other than itself ) .
In this day and age , such an effort needs to stack up against Facebook -- imagine Mosaic trying to get market share from Chrome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine, if you will, a cross between a Facebook style interface and an Apache style implementation: that is, something that will let you (as a user) connect to any other user and not give a damn about how or where, and at the same time let anyone run their own standards-compliant server with the exact settings that they prefer.To get this right, it needs to take a long hard look at user data privacy *as the first thing*, and that's exactly what the Appleseed Project (http://appleseed.sourceforge.net) was intended to showcase.One reason why Facebook made it big is because they got their commercial model right (don't tell anyone, but the users are actually the product, not the customers).The trouble is not so much that an Appleseed style implementation won't work (we know it does, because that's how the whole everyman's Internet got off the ground) but that it's not a pioneering effort (citing the same example, because the crummy early-day Internet had no competition other than itself).
In this day and age, such an effort needs to stack up against Facebook -- imagine Mosaic trying to get market share from Chrome!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544186</id>
	<title>Technically unfeasible</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even leaving the "who cares?" and "too late anyway" issues aside, this is simply technically unfeasible:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server. [Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done.</p></div><p>I mean, is Mr Moglen familar with concepts such as "NAT" and "private IP address"?</p><p>Maybe lawyers should stick to handling legalese, and techies are the one to deal with such things...</p><p>(I am aware that Moglen was involved at CS at some point, but it was a long time ago, and the world has moved on since then. The same applies to RMS himself, by the way - technology-wise, he still lives in early 90s.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even leaving the " who cares ?
" and " too late anyway " issues aside , this is simply technically unfeasible : The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small , ARM-based , plug it into the wall , wall-wart server .
[ Such ] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price , and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet , and you 're done.I mean , is Mr Moglen familar with concepts such as " NAT " and " private IP address " ? Maybe lawyers should stick to handling legalese , and techies are the one to deal with such things... ( I am aware that Moglen was involved at CS at some point , but it was a long time ago , and the world has moved on since then .
The same applies to RMS himself , by the way - technology-wise , he still lives in early 90s .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even leaving the "who cares?
" and "too late anyway" issues aside, this is simply technically unfeasible:The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server.
[Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done.I mean, is Mr Moglen familar with concepts such as "NAT" and "private IP address"?Maybe lawyers should stick to handling legalese, and techies are the one to deal with such things...(I am aware that Moglen was involved at CS at some point, but it was a long time ago, and the world has moved on since then.
The same applies to RMS himself, by the way - technology-wise, he still lives in early 90s.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545758</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>tkinnun0</author>
	<datestamp>1269003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.</p></div><p>So basically Facebook but even slower because it has to fetch every little bit of information from unreliable home servers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.So basically Facebook but even slower because it has to fetch every little bit of information from unreliable home servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.So basically Facebook but even slower because it has to fetch every little bit of information from unreliable home servers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545006</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>ChinggisK</author>
	<datestamp>1268998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're wrong on a number of counts (and right on a few) but I'm only going to point out one because I'm lazy.<p><div class="quote"><p>You could set your privacy settings very high but your friends will give you away. At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends, including you.</p> </div><p>This is simply false.  If you have it set correctly, the only time you show up on other people's profiles is when you post something there, and even then, you are just a black name that people can't even click on.  Otherwise, you are not searchable, you don't show up on friends lists, etc; the only way for people to find you is for you to find them.  There's not even a thumbnail picture, there's no way to prove that it's even you (as opposed to someone else with the same name).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong on a number of counts ( and right on a few ) but I 'm only going to point out one because I 'm lazy.You could set your privacy settings very high but your friends will give you away .
At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends , including you .
This is simply false .
If you have it set correctly , the only time you show up on other people 's profiles is when you post something there , and even then , you are just a black name that people ca n't even click on .
Otherwise , you are not searchable , you do n't show up on friends lists , etc ; the only way for people to find you is for you to find them .
There 's not even a thumbnail picture , there 's no way to prove that it 's even you ( as opposed to someone else with the same name ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong on a number of counts (and right on a few) but I'm only going to point out one because I'm lazy.You could set your privacy settings very high but your friends will give you away.
At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends, including you.
This is simply false.
If you have it set correctly, the only time you show up on other people's profiles is when you post something there, and even then, you are just a black name that people can't even click on.
Otherwise, you are not searchable, you don't show up on friends lists, etc; the only way for people to find you is for you to find them.
There's not even a thumbnail picture, there's no way to prove that it's even you (as opposed to someone else with the same name).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545992</id>
	<title>Thinking small</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are concerned about security/privacy/freedom, the problem isn't facebook, the problem is cloud based computing in general.  The "cloud" (i.e. big centralized proprietary vendor control of your data) needs to be usurped by a decentralized overlay network with strong security/privacy protections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are concerned about security/privacy/freedom , the problem is n't facebook , the problem is cloud based computing in general .
The " cloud " ( i.e .
big centralized proprietary vendor control of your data ) needs to be usurped by a decentralized overlay network with strong security/privacy protections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are concerned about security/privacy/freedom, the problem isn't facebook, the problem is cloud based computing in general.
The "cloud" (i.e.
big centralized proprietary vendor control of your data) needs to be usurped by a decentralized overlay network with strong security/privacy protections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544520</id>
	<title>I have a better idea...</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1268996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly I'm market. For those people asking who would use such a service, I would, anyone who doesn't like facebook but wants to be more conected with friends will like it. I bet many people here would like it, there IS a market for this.</p><p>Ok, let me come up with some ideas.</p><p>- Give it a clear name and tag line. My book, my information, my control.<br>- Let me install this in my machine, the wall wart is really nice but it should be an extra.<br>- Integrate it with a DNS/url Hosting service!<br>a) Give it an option to buy your own domain (with liks to verison, godday etc)<br>b) Give it an option to use a free personal domain (think dyndns) then make the client responsible for keeping this DNS updated.<br>c) Make a deal with/create a company to host "My Personal Web" links (think <a href="http://myweb.org/Requiem" title="myweb.org">http://myweb.org/Requiem</a> [myweb.org])<br>- Make everything above multi identity friendly, one PPW for the job, one for friends.<br>- Make it easy to sync with other computers you host, either you desktop, or your spouse's, or your netbook, one has to be online most of the time-<br>- And yes, the wall wart.<br>- Integrate with Firefox/Flock/Chrome/ Maybe even IE.<br>- Integrate with Youtube/Delicious/Blogger, you get the idea.<br>- IMPORTANT: Make it so people can use it even if they don't have the client installed. It's a web app after all.<br>- Give them the option to install it from my personal web.<br>- Add a big "What is my personal web?" to the corner of, my personal web. Let my friends know I own my very own facebook.</p><p>I AM SOLD. I'd even buy the wall wart. You only have to implement these features.</p><p>No, I don't need it to already have critical mass. I can make my friends into visit a url, trust me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly I 'm market .
For those people asking who would use such a service , I would , anyone who does n't like facebook but wants to be more conected with friends will like it .
I bet many people here would like it , there IS a market for this.Ok , let me come up with some ideas.- Give it a clear name and tag line .
My book , my information , my control.- Let me install this in my machine , the wall wart is really nice but it should be an extra.- Integrate it with a DNS/url Hosting service ! a ) Give it an option to buy your own domain ( with liks to verison , godday etc ) b ) Give it an option to use a free personal domain ( think dyndns ) then make the client responsible for keeping this DNS updated.c ) Make a deal with/create a company to host " My Personal Web " links ( think http : //myweb.org/Requiem [ myweb.org ] ) - Make everything above multi identity friendly , one PPW for the job , one for friends.- Make it easy to sync with other computers you host , either you desktop , or your spouse 's , or your netbook , one has to be online most of the time-- And yes , the wall wart.- Integrate with Firefox/Flock/Chrome/ Maybe even IE.- Integrate with Youtube/Delicious/Blogger , you get the idea.- IMPORTANT : Make it so people can use it even if they do n't have the client installed .
It 's a web app after all.- Give them the option to install it from my personal web.- Add a big " What is my personal web ?
" to the corner of , my personal web .
Let my friends know I own my very own facebook.I AM SOLD .
I 'd even buy the wall wart .
You only have to implement these features.No , I do n't need it to already have critical mass .
I can make my friends into visit a url , trust me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly I'm market.
For those people asking who would use such a service, I would, anyone who doesn't like facebook but wants to be more conected with friends will like it.
I bet many people here would like it, there IS a market for this.Ok, let me come up with some ideas.- Give it a clear name and tag line.
My book, my information, my control.- Let me install this in my machine, the wall wart is really nice but it should be an extra.- Integrate it with a DNS/url Hosting service!a) Give it an option to buy your own domain (with liks to verison, godday etc)b) Give it an option to use a free personal domain (think dyndns) then make the client responsible for keeping this DNS updated.c) Make a deal with/create a company to host "My Personal Web" links (think http://myweb.org/Requiem [myweb.org])- Make everything above multi identity friendly, one PPW for the job, one for friends.- Make it easy to sync with other computers you host, either you desktop, or your spouse's, or your netbook, one has to be online most of the time-- And yes, the wall wart.- Integrate with Firefox/Flock/Chrome/ Maybe even IE.- Integrate with Youtube/Delicious/Blogger, you get the idea.- IMPORTANT: Make it so people can use it even if they don't have the client installed.
It's a web app after all.- Give them the option to install it from my personal web.- Add a big "What is my personal web?
" to the corner of, my personal web.
Let my friends know I own my very own facebook.I AM SOLD.
I'd even buy the wall wart.
You only have to implement these features.No, I don't need it to already have critical mass.
I can make my friends into visit a url, trust me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324</id>
	<title>I don't like it. BUT!</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1268991180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol, similar to email/Jabber/etc. Standard IM protocols along with standard (XML based?) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other, and find friends.</p><p>The issue is that SOME sort of centralization is probably best for this kind of online interaction; the question is to what extent your secure content is hosted and in your own control.</p><p>Best option: Don't put private shit in a public place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol , similar to email/Jabber/etc .
Standard IM protocols along with standard ( XML based ?
) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other , and find friends.The issue is that SOME sort of centralization is probably best for this kind of online interaction ; the question is to what extent your secure content is hosted and in your own control.Best option : Do n't put private shit in a public place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol, similar to email/Jabber/etc.
Standard IM protocols along with standard (XML based?
) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other, and find friends.The issue is that SOME sort of centralization is probably best for this kind of online interaction; the question is to what extent your secure content is hosted and in your own control.Best option: Don't put private shit in a public place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746</id>
	<title>He is talking about a home page isn't he?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cut all the bull out and he wants to go back to homepages. Oh okay, so this homepage is in your home behind the router to your ISP and not on a server at your ISP, but that is what he is talking about.
</p><p>And how would you index that? You can't. So you have freenet, the darknet version. A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable.
</p><p>The problem is simple. How do I join a network from which I don't know anyone? How do I join your circle of friends, if I don't know any in the circle?
</p><p>Darknet has that problem. Yes, you can exchange files but only with people you know from some other means. And then you exchange files only between that small number of nodes and no way is the secret world government that controls everything unable to just listen in on your connection that goes through your ISP who knows you address and see where the packets go. And that is not a problem even, because they can't look inside the package and that works in places like North-Korea and even China were the secret police is just going to give up if they can't read the package they don't want you to send unless they can open them and not just hit you until you confess.
</p><p>Crypto nerds, they are like real nerds, but with the practical usage.
</p><p>This idea of homepage servers, won't work. Facebook works because it allows you to find people that you lost contact with and even new friends.
</p><p>And if he really wants to test it, go ahead. Try "Opera Unite". No need for a silly plug, your own site, right in your own browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut all the bull out and he wants to go back to homepages .
Oh okay , so this homepage is in your home behind the router to your ISP and not on a server at your ISP , but that is what he is talking about .
And how would you index that ?
You ca n't .
So you have freenet , the darknet version .
A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable .
The problem is simple .
How do I join a network from which I do n't know anyone ?
How do I join your circle of friends , if I do n't know any in the circle ?
Darknet has that problem .
Yes , you can exchange files but only with people you know from some other means .
And then you exchange files only between that small number of nodes and no way is the secret world government that controls everything unable to just listen in on your connection that goes through your ISP who knows you address and see where the packets go .
And that is not a problem even , because they ca n't look inside the package and that works in places like North-Korea and even China were the secret police is just going to give up if they ca n't read the package they do n't want you to send unless they can open them and not just hit you until you confess .
Crypto nerds , they are like real nerds , but with the practical usage .
This idea of homepage servers , wo n't work .
Facebook works because it allows you to find people that you lost contact with and even new friends .
And if he really wants to test it , go ahead .
Try " Opera Unite " .
No need for a silly plug , your own site , right in your own browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut all the bull out and he wants to go back to homepages.
Oh okay, so this homepage is in your home behind the router to your ISP and not on a server at your ISP, but that is what he is talking about.
And how would you index that?
You can't.
So you have freenet, the darknet version.
A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable.
The problem is simple.
How do I join a network from which I don't know anyone?
How do I join your circle of friends, if I don't know any in the circle?
Darknet has that problem.
Yes, you can exchange files but only with people you know from some other means.
And then you exchange files only between that small number of nodes and no way is the secret world government that controls everything unable to just listen in on your connection that goes through your ISP who knows you address and see where the packets go.
And that is not a problem even, because they can't look inside the package and that works in places like North-Korea and even China were the secret police is just going to give up if they can't read the package they don't want you to send unless they can open them and not just hit you until you confess.
Crypto nerds, they are like real nerds, but with the practical usage.
This idea of homepage servers, won't work.
Facebook works because it allows you to find people that you lost contact with and even new friends.
And if he really wants to test it, go ahead.
Try "Opera Unite".
No need for a silly plug, your own site, right in your own browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546320</id>
	<title>(no) power to the people</title>
	<author>mcohrs</author>
	<datestamp>1269007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I do care. I care that a site is vetted by some entity that is large enough to have something to loose if they host spam, spyware or viruses.  Perhaps I value short term security over an unquantifiable, possible loss of privacy.  I doubt that I would traverse far and wide over insecure links hosted by individuals or small enterprises. I may be in the minority here-- look at the success of various torrent sites, and the malware they can spread.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I do care .
I care that a site is vetted by some entity that is large enough to have something to loose if they host spam , spyware or viruses .
Perhaps I value short term security over an unquantifiable , possible loss of privacy .
I doubt that I would traverse far and wide over insecure links hosted by individuals or small enterprises .
I may be in the minority here-- look at the success of various torrent sites , and the malware they can spread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I do care.
I care that a site is vetted by some entity that is large enough to have something to loose if they host spam, spyware or viruses.
Perhaps I value short term security over an unquantifiable, possible loss of privacy.
I doubt that I would traverse far and wide over insecure links hosted by individuals or small enterprises.
I may be in the minority here-- look at the success of various torrent sites, and the malware they can spread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246</id>
	<title>"freedom"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.</p><p>What freedom means to me, what I am frightened of and / or prepared to sacrifice is not a temporally static concept. 10 years ago I wouldn't even publish my mail address online. Now I have my entire cv on xing. These are rational decisions I made according to costs I perceive (correctly or not) with publishing personal information, or not.</p><p>Sure, some people make poor choices about publishing personal information (sexting, anyone?). But some times openness is an indicator for a "safe" society.</p><p>Just my thoughts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.What freedom means to me , what I am frightened of and / or prepared to sacrifice is not a temporally static concept .
10 years ago I would n't even publish my mail address online .
Now I have my entire cv on xing .
These are rational decisions I made according to costs I perceive ( correctly or not ) with publishing personal information , or not.Sure , some people make poor choices about publishing personal information ( sexting , anyone ? ) .
But some times openness is an indicator for a " safe " society.Just my thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.What freedom means to me, what I am frightened of and / or prepared to sacrifice is not a temporally static concept.
10 years ago I wouldn't even publish my mail address online.
Now I have my entire cv on xing.
These are rational decisions I made according to costs I perceive (correctly or not) with publishing personal information, or not.Sure, some people make poor choices about publishing personal information (sexting, anyone?).
But some times openness is an indicator for a "safe" society.Just my thoughts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544366</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1268995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Stallman believes it is immoral to create software that doesn't live up to his definition of "free."  He would like very much to stop everyone from doing so.  In other words, Stallman would like to remove everyone's freedom to create software in ways and forms which he doesn't agree with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Stallman believes it is immoral to create software that does n't live up to his definition of " free .
" He would like very much to stop everyone from doing so .
In other words , Stallman would like to remove everyone 's freedom to create software in ways and forms which he does n't agree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Stallman believes it is immoral to create software that doesn't live up to his definition of "free.
"  He would like very much to stop everyone from doing so.
In other words, Stallman would like to remove everyone's freedom to create software in ways and forms which he doesn't agree with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545438</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh...</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1269001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that there is a significant number of people that still don't have their own computers, and instead use someone else's (friend, family, etc.), a school's, or even the public library, and so they're not paying for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that there is a significant number of people that still do n't have their own computers , and instead use someone else 's ( friend , family , etc .
) , a school 's , or even the public library , and so they 're not paying for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that there is a significant number of people that still don't have their own computers, and instead use someone else's (friend, family, etc.
), a school's, or even the public library, and so they're not paying for anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31552542</id>
	<title>Free software wants to be free</title>
	<author>jsdcnet</author>
	<datestamp>1269082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just insane.  If you write free software, you have to accept that people might want to use it for things of which you don't approve.  If you can't handle that, don't write free software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just insane .
If you write free software , you have to accept that people might want to use it for things of which you do n't approve .
If you ca n't handle that , do n't write free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just insane.
If you write free software, you have to accept that people might want to use it for things of which you don't approve.
If you can't handle that, don't write free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543256</id>
	<title>People use social networks because they WANT to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell would use this?  How many people are really that desperate to escape social networks?  People who REALLY didn't want them would never have signed up in the first place.  People who used to like them and don't anymore, can just spend a couple hours tracking it all down.  Mightn't people who use this want to customize its exact effects?  Isn't the easiest way to do that...to just close your accounts yourself?
<br> <br>
This sounds like something a sixth-grader would come up with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell would use this ?
How many people are really that desperate to escape social networks ?
People who REALLY did n't want them would never have signed up in the first place .
People who used to like them and do n't anymore , can just spend a couple hours tracking it all down .
Might n't people who use this want to customize its exact effects ?
Is n't the easiest way to do that...to just close your accounts yourself ?
This sounds like something a sixth-grader would come up with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell would use this?
How many people are really that desperate to escape social networks?
People who REALLY didn't want them would never have signed up in the first place.
People who used to like them and don't anymore, can just spend a couple hours tracking it all down.
Mightn't people who use this want to customize its exact effects?
Isn't the easiest way to do that...to just close your accounts yourself?
This sounds like something a sixth-grader would come up with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546270</id>
	<title>Totally unnecessary</title>
	<author>bXTr</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who are truly concerned about their freedom and privacy would not be using online services like Facebook in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are truly concerned about their freedom and privacy would not be using online services like Facebook in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are truly concerned about their freedom and privacy would not be using online services like Facebook in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545808</id>
	<title>Re:I don't like it. BUT!</title>
	<author>1 a bee</author>
	<datestamp>1269003480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Late to this party.. Similar thoughts on how to pull something like this off <a href="http://babaksjournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/decentralizing-social-media-and-related.html" title="blogspot.com">
here</a> [blogspot.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Late to this party.. Similar thoughts on how to pull something like this off here [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Late to this party.. Similar thoughts on how to pull something like this off 
here [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543516</id>
	<title>azazazazaz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this categorized as news?  This reads much more like an "ASK SLASHDOT" article than anything else.</p><p>To the author, social information isn't very social if its private.  If you don't trust your data in a centralized place, then stop using a computer period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this categorized as news ?
This reads much more like an " ASK SLASHDOT " article than anything else.To the author , social information is n't very social if its private .
If you do n't trust your data in a centralized place , then stop using a computer period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this categorized as news?
This reads much more like an "ASK SLASHDOT" article than anything else.To the author, social information isn't very social if its private.
If you don't trust your data in a centralized place, then stop using a computer period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543502</id>
	<title>I'll Second the Motion: It's Stupid</title>
	<author>vinn</author>
	<datestamp>1268991840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. You'd have to out-Facebook Facebook. Good luck building a better social networking site. Look at the morons at Linked-In and MySpace, they can't get it right and they both had a headstart.<br>2. Good luck getting someone to purchase hardware.<br>3. Why would anyone think the NSA didn't have a backdoor built into it anyway?<br>4. Even most of us geeks long ago gave up caring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
You 'd have to out-Facebook Facebook .
Good luck building a better social networking site .
Look at the morons at Linked-In and MySpace , they ca n't get it right and they both had a headstart.2 .
Good luck getting someone to purchase hardware.3 .
Why would anyone think the NSA did n't have a backdoor built into it anyway ? 4 .
Even most of us geeks long ago gave up caring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
You'd have to out-Facebook Facebook.
Good luck building a better social networking site.
Look at the morons at Linked-In and MySpace, they can't get it right and they both had a headstart.2.
Good luck getting someone to purchase hardware.3.
Why would anyone think the NSA didn't have a backdoor built into it anyway?4.
Even most of us geeks long ago gave up caring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549578</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1269101100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li> <strong>Privacy</strong>: I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name.</li></ul></div><p>So register under a pseudonym. Worried that people will still tag you under your real name? They're probably doing that now, regardless of whether you have an account or not. It's people that are the problem, not Facebook.</p><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li> <strong>Shallowness</strong>: The quality of communication on Facebook is poor. The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done. You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate (Read: Why the hell am <i>I</i> on Slashdot then?) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy.</li></ul></div><p>You prefer email, but you wish it was more like Facebook? Try Facebook messaging, it's like email but it's on Facebook. Seriously though, email doesn't promote intellectual debate, it just allows you to contact people. Just like messaging on Facebook does. I've had hugely inane discussions on email, and in-depth philosophical debates on Facebook messaging. Again, it's the person and not the medium.</p><p><div class="quote"><ul> <li> <strong>Trendy</strong>: The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people. One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply, it focused on contribution of blog postings, news, links, pictures and videos. It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile.</li></ul></div><p>Blogs, news, links, pictures and videos? It sounds kinda like Facebook. Except of course that none of your friends were there, so when they joined up and none of their friends were there, the whole experience seemed rather pointless - compared to Facebook, where they could actually communicate with people. Once a site like Facebook hits critical mass in terms of user numbers, it's almost impossible to persuade people to move to a new site, even if it offers compelling new features.</p><p>As for the remainder of your points, I'm mostly in agreement. I use Facebook because all of my friends are there, and there's no other way to conveniently keep up with them all. I find the service really useful. I'm certainly not happy about some of the ramifications in terms of privacy, but I do my best to exacerbate them, and the remainder is just a trade-off between security and convenience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy : I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name.So register under a pseudonym .
Worried that people will still tag you under your real name ?
They 're probably doing that now , regardless of whether you have an account or not .
It 's people that are the problem , not Facebook .
Shallowness : The quality of communication on Facebook is poor .
The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done .
You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate ( Read : Why the hell am I on Slashdot then ?
) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy.You prefer email , but you wish it was more like Facebook ?
Try Facebook messaging , it 's like email but it 's on Facebook .
Seriously though , email does n't promote intellectual debate , it just allows you to contact people .
Just like messaging on Facebook does .
I 've had hugely inane discussions on email , and in-depth philosophical debates on Facebook messaging .
Again , it 's the person and not the medium .
Trendy : The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people .
One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply , it focused on contribution of blog postings , news , links , pictures and videos .
It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile.Blogs , news , links , pictures and videos ?
It sounds kinda like Facebook .
Except of course that none of your friends were there , so when they joined up and none of their friends were there , the whole experience seemed rather pointless - compared to Facebook , where they could actually communicate with people .
Once a site like Facebook hits critical mass in terms of user numbers , it 's almost impossible to persuade people to move to a new site , even if it offers compelling new features.As for the remainder of your points , I 'm mostly in agreement .
I use Facebook because all of my friends are there , and there 's no other way to conveniently keep up with them all .
I find the service really useful .
I 'm certainly not happy about some of the ramifications in terms of privacy , but I do my best to exacerbate them , and the remainder is just a trade-off between security and convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Privacy: I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name.So register under a pseudonym.
Worried that people will still tag you under your real name?
They're probably doing that now, regardless of whether you have an account or not.
It's people that are the problem, not Facebook.
Shallowness: The quality of communication on Facebook is poor.
The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done.
You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate (Read: Why the hell am I on Slashdot then?
) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy.You prefer email, but you wish it was more like Facebook?
Try Facebook messaging, it's like email but it's on Facebook.
Seriously though, email doesn't promote intellectual debate, it just allows you to contact people.
Just like messaging on Facebook does.
I've had hugely inane discussions on email, and in-depth philosophical debates on Facebook messaging.
Again, it's the person and not the medium.
Trendy: The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people.
One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply, it focused on contribution of blog postings, news, links, pictures and videos.
It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile.Blogs, news, links, pictures and videos?
It sounds kinda like Facebook.
Except of course that none of your friends were there, so when they joined up and none of their friends were there, the whole experience seemed rather pointless - compared to Facebook, where they could actually communicate with people.
Once a site like Facebook hits critical mass in terms of user numbers, it's almost impossible to persuade people to move to a new site, even if it offers compelling new features.As for the remainder of your points, I'm mostly in agreement.
I use Facebook because all of my friends are there, and there's no other way to conveniently keep up with them all.
I find the service really useful.
I'm certainly not happy about some of the ramifications in terms of privacy, but I do my best to exacerbate them, and the remainder is just a trade-off between security and convenience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544148</id>
	<title>Free Software squandered first mover advantage</title>
	<author>akb</author>
	<datestamp>1268994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free Software had first mover advantage over the big brother social network sites but it didn't innovate fast enough.  Remember blogs?  What happened?  The community couldn't agree on standards for providing advanced social applications that people wanted, so the walled gardens sprang up that provided them.  Seriously, remember the years of dumb ass bickering over RSS or Atom?</p><p>I personally am very sad that large parts of the social experience online are now within wall gardens, I see it as AOL's revenge from the grave.  It says something about the limits of open processes that hopefully the Free Software movement and others can learn from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Software had first mover advantage over the big brother social network sites but it did n't innovate fast enough .
Remember blogs ?
What happened ?
The community could n't agree on standards for providing advanced social applications that people wanted , so the walled gardens sprang up that provided them .
Seriously , remember the years of dumb ass bickering over RSS or Atom ? I personally am very sad that large parts of the social experience online are now within wall gardens , I see it as AOL 's revenge from the grave .
It says something about the limits of open processes that hopefully the Free Software movement and others can learn from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Software had first mover advantage over the big brother social network sites but it didn't innovate fast enough.
Remember blogs?
What happened?
The community couldn't agree on standards for providing advanced social applications that people wanted, so the walled gardens sprang up that provided them.
Seriously, remember the years of dumb ass bickering over RSS or Atom?I personally am very sad that large parts of the social experience online are now within wall gardens, I see it as AOL's revenge from the grave.
It says something about the limits of open processes that hopefully the Free Software movement and others can learn from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547730</id>
	<title>What we need more,</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1269026400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is something to save us from Glyn Moody.  This wormy-looking prick once wrote a <a href="http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/rms-and-his-magic-bread.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">piece praising Stallman</a> [blogspot.com] for giving us "magic bread".  As you might of guessed, it's a modified version of Jesus's "feeding of the multitude".</htmltext>
<tokenext>is something to save us from Glyn Moody .
This wormy-looking prick once wrote a piece praising Stallman [ blogspot.com ] for giving us " magic bread " .
As you might of guessed , it 's a modified version of Jesus 's " feeding of the multitude " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is something to save us from Glyn Moody.
This wormy-looking prick once wrote a piece praising Stallman [blogspot.com] for giving us "magic bread".
As you might of guessed, it's a modified version of Jesus's "feeding of the multitude".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547846</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269028380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that the 'solution', while attractive from a nerdy perspective...totally lacks any benefit to anyone.  Why would the average facebook "hey dude, I 'poked' you and gave you a virtual fish!" user want to fork out money for this fantabulous wall wart setup when he already has a ten year old computer that serves the purpose just fine?</p><p>Most technical folks just salivate at these amazing ideas, but fail to ask the "why would anyone pay for this, and what problem does it solve for them?!?" sorts of questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that the 'solution ' , while attractive from a nerdy perspective...totally lacks any benefit to anyone .
Why would the average facebook " hey dude , I 'poked ' you and gave you a virtual fish !
" user want to fork out money for this fantabulous wall wart setup when he already has a ten year old computer that serves the purpose just fine ? Most technical folks just salivate at these amazing ideas , but fail to ask the " why would anyone pay for this , and what problem does it solve for them ? ! ?
" sorts of questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that the 'solution', while attractive from a nerdy perspective...totally lacks any benefit to anyone.
Why would the average facebook "hey dude, I 'poked' you and gave you a virtual fish!
" user want to fork out money for this fantabulous wall wart setup when he already has a ten year old computer that serves the purpose just fine?Most technical folks just salivate at these amazing ideas, but fail to ask the "why would anyone pay for this, and what problem does it solve for them?!?
" sorts of questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543750</id>
	<title>Indicies and references are a problem, though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social networking sites are far more than "informatiuon about a few million people". Their value comes from the <b>relationships between those people</b>. This have value to the people themselves, and, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on where one lies on the marketting/privacy divide, to others. It's restricting this access to others and controlling information about one's self, that's the appeal of this device.</p><p>However, maintaining all those relationships distributed across they myriad of individual servers in each home will prove problematic: one essentially has a distributed database. The first issues that come to mind are location services, mapping "friend" links to their wall-wart servers (yes, this is DNS, but do you want to be <b>that visible</b>?), as well as backups. The network traffic involved in simple "friend of friend" graphing starts to get significant.</p><p>In such an environment Facebook would likely spider all the wall-wart servers in a Googlesque manner for (a) marketting, and (b) convenience.</p><p>Still, it's a concept I've pondered for a while: I should control information about me, and who I share it with. Replication and backup becomes a separate problem: perhaps I want some storage service provider to host it... perhaps not: connections to port 25 at a server resolved from my domain name have terminated on a PC in my home for years: if my physical mailbox is outside my house, why should my electronic one not be inside (cursing static IP rental costs aside)?</p><p>In this model, "Facebook" becomes an "app", that people download to their home servers and use to establish and publish relationships between their friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social networking sites are far more than " informatiuon about a few million people " .
Their value comes from the relationships between those people .
This have value to the people themselves , and , fortunately , or unfortunately , depending on where one lies on the marketting/privacy divide , to others .
It 's restricting this access to others and controlling information about one 's self , that 's the appeal of this device.However , maintaining all those relationships distributed across they myriad of individual servers in each home will prove problematic : one essentially has a distributed database .
The first issues that come to mind are location services , mapping " friend " links to their wall-wart servers ( yes , this is DNS , but do you want to be that visible ?
) , as well as backups .
The network traffic involved in simple " friend of friend " graphing starts to get significant.In such an environment Facebook would likely spider all the wall-wart servers in a Googlesque manner for ( a ) marketting , and ( b ) convenience.Still , it 's a concept I 've pondered for a while : I should control information about me , and who I share it with .
Replication and backup becomes a separate problem : perhaps I want some storage service provider to host it... perhaps not : connections to port 25 at a server resolved from my domain name have terminated on a PC in my home for years : if my physical mailbox is outside my house , why should my electronic one not be inside ( cursing static IP rental costs aside ) ? In this model , " Facebook " becomes an " app " , that people download to their home servers and use to establish and publish relationships between their friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social networking sites are far more than "informatiuon about a few million people".
Their value comes from the relationships between those people.
This have value to the people themselves, and, fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on where one lies on the marketting/privacy divide, to others.
It's restricting this access to others and controlling information about one's self, that's the appeal of this device.However, maintaining all those relationships distributed across they myriad of individual servers in each home will prove problematic: one essentially has a distributed database.
The first issues that come to mind are location services, mapping "friend" links to their wall-wart servers (yes, this is DNS, but do you want to be that visible?
), as well as backups.
The network traffic involved in simple "friend of friend" graphing starts to get significant.In such an environment Facebook would likely spider all the wall-wart servers in a Googlesque manner for (a) marketting, and (b) convenience.Still, it's a concept I've pondered for a while: I should control information about me, and who I share it with.
Replication and backup becomes a separate problem: perhaps I want some storage service provider to host it... perhaps not: connections to port 25 at a server resolved from my domain name have terminated on a PC in my home for years: if my physical mailbox is outside my house, why should my electronic one not be inside (cursing static IP rental costs aside)?In this model, "Facebook" becomes an "app", that people download to their home servers and use to establish and publish relationships between their friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546680</id>
	<title>Re:The Free social network already exists</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1269011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's called the World Wide Web. People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.</p></div><p>It's like saying c++ is so much powerful than an accounting application.<br>But if I want to do accounting, I'd still rather use an accounting app.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the World Wide Web .
People hated it because it was n't constrained and limited enough.It 's like saying c + + is so much powerful than an accounting application.But if I want to do accounting , I 'd still rather use an accounting app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the World Wide Web.
People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.It's like saying c++ is so much powerful than an accounting application.But if I want to do accounting, I'd still rather use an accounting app.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544904</id>
	<title>Re:He is talking about a home page isn't he?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how would you index that? You can't. So you have freenet, the darknet version. A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable.</p></div><p>so what if it is my wetdream, you insensitive clod!</p><p>But really, I agree. Darknets are quite useless unless you have some means to find data on it. I also agree that facebook is bad, not so much because of the SN idea but more the way they (ab)use your password(s) and other content without your approval. Sure, they changed things back after most outrages, but that still says a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how would you index that ?
You ca n't .
So you have freenet , the darknet version .
A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable.so what if it is my wetdream , you insensitive clod ! But really , I agree .
Darknets are quite useless unless you have some means to find data on it .
I also agree that facebook is bad , not so much because of the SN idea but more the way they ( ab ) use your password ( s ) and other content without your approval .
Sure , they changed things back after most outrages , but that still says a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how would you index that?
You can't.
So you have freenet, the darknet version.
A crypto nerds wetdream and unusable.so what if it is my wetdream, you insensitive clod!But really, I agree.
Darknets are quite useless unless you have some means to find data on it.
I also agree that facebook is bad, not so much because of the SN idea but more the way they (ab)use your password(s) and other content without your approval.
Sure, they changed things back after most outrages, but that still says a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543774</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he's already saying this idea is shit:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We can eat proprietary networks and excrete the public Internet.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's already saying this idea is shit : We can eat proprietary networks and excrete the public Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's already saying this idea is shit:We can eat proprietary networks and excrete the public Internet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543882</id>
	<title>Re:I don't like it. BUT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't it stink after a while, keeping all that private shit around?</p><p>Personally, I flush my shit in private, even if that means it goes into public sewers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't it stink after a while , keeping all that private shit around ? Personally , I flush my shit in private , even if that means it goes into public sewers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't it stink after a while, keeping all that private shit around?Personally, I flush my shit in private, even if that means it goes into public sewers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543190</id>
	<title>Demand depends on the price.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's cheap, sure I'll get one, I like new obscure hardware designed to do weird things. And that's not sarcasm.
But social networking sites as Twitter and Facebook are free, so the hardware would have to be extremely cheap.
If it's over 75-100&euro;, the only people buying them are people who want to hack it so they can use it for something else and paranoid people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's cheap , sure I 'll get one , I like new obscure hardware designed to do weird things .
And that 's not sarcasm .
But social networking sites as Twitter and Facebook are free , so the hardware would have to be extremely cheap .
If it 's over 75-100    , the only people buying them are people who want to hack it so they can use it for something else and paranoid people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's cheap, sure I'll get one, I like new obscure hardware designed to do weird things.
And that's not sarcasm.
But social networking sites as Twitter and Facebook are free, so the hardware would have to be extremely cheap.
If it's over 75-100€, the only people buying them are people who want to hack it so they can use it for something else and paranoid people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</id>
	<title>I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....and suggest that most people don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....and suggest that most people do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....and suggest that most people don't care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784</id>
	<title>The Free social network already exists</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1268993220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the World Wide Web.  People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.</p><p>I am totally serious.  It's one of those things (actually a very common phenomenon) where putting constraints on something, opens peoples' eyes as to how it can be used, and makes it seem cooler.  But then they <em>forget</em> that they can still do those same things, even without the limitations present.  Life is weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the World Wide Web .
People hated it because it was n't constrained and limited enough.I am totally serious .
It 's one of those things ( actually a very common phenomenon ) where putting constraints on something , opens peoples ' eyes as to how it can be used , and makes it seem cooler .
But then they forget that they can still do those same things , even without the limitations present .
Life is weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the World Wide Web.
People hated it because it wasn't constrained and limited enough.I am totally serious.
It's one of those things (actually a very common phenomenon) where putting constraints on something, opens peoples' eyes as to how it can be used, and makes it seem cooler.
But then they forget that they can still do those same things, even without the limitations present.
Life is weird.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546736</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I deleted mine some time ago as in found it to have no added functionality to my personal life. In fact I found that people who contacted me on FB would never really contact me in real life or through a medium requiring a more in depth form of communication. upon deletion all such contact seized which leads to suggest that no great loss was incurred. Bit of a "no brainer" really!</p><p>I pretty much agree with all of the above and would say that I am probably very un-cool for doing so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..hence I shall remain as anonymous coward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I deleted mine some time ago as in found it to have no added functionality to my personal life .
In fact I found that people who contacted me on FB would never really contact me in real life or through a medium requiring a more in depth form of communication .
upon deletion all such contact seized which leads to suggest that no great loss was incurred .
Bit of a " no brainer " really ! I pretty much agree with all of the above and would say that I am probably very un-cool for doing so ..hence I shall remain as anonymous coward : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deleted mine some time ago as in found it to have no added functionality to my personal life.
In fact I found that people who contacted me on FB would never really contact me in real life or through a medium requiring a more in depth form of communication.
upon deletion all such contact seized which leads to suggest that no great loss was incurred.
Bit of a "no brainer" really!I pretty much agree with all of the above and would say that I am probably very un-cool for doing so ..hence I shall remain as anonymous coward :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543700</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Tiger4</author>
	<datestamp>1268992680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  Everybody wants Freedom.  And Security. Ask them and they always say they do. But when it comes right down to it, they don't really care that much about it.  Certainly you can't get most people to pay for it (would you pay $1 for this encryption...?)  And getting them to understand even the most basic principles of how to be secure is an infinite task.  When you hear people say, "I don't want people looking at all my information on Myspace/Facebook/etc." you have to wonder why they put it out there  in the first place.</p><p>And as for Software Freedom, I suspect that is so abstract and esoteric a concept they will assume you're speaking Klingon.  Most people can't be bothered to configure their own software, let alone worry about what rights are encumbered, or what might prevent them from using someone else's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Everybody wants Freedom .
And Security .
Ask them and they always say they do .
But when it comes right down to it , they do n't really care that much about it .
Certainly you ca n't get most people to pay for it ( would you pay $ 1 for this encryption... ?
) And getting them to understand even the most basic principles of how to be secure is an infinite task .
When you hear people say , " I do n't want people looking at all my information on Myspace/Facebook/etc .
" you have to wonder why they put it out there in the first place.And as for Software Freedom , I suspect that is so abstract and esoteric a concept they will assume you 're speaking Klingon .
Most people ca n't be bothered to configure their own software , let alone worry about what rights are encumbered , or what might prevent them from using someone else 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Everybody wants Freedom.
And Security.
Ask them and they always say they do.
But when it comes right down to it, they don't really care that much about it.
Certainly you can't get most people to pay for it (would you pay $1 for this encryption...?
)  And getting them to understand even the most basic principles of how to be secure is an infinite task.
When you hear people say, "I don't want people looking at all my information on Myspace/Facebook/etc.
" you have to wonder why they put it out there  in the first place.And as for Software Freedom, I suspect that is so abstract and esoteric a concept they will assume you're speaking Klingon.
Most people can't be bothered to configure their own software, let alone worry about what rights are encumbered, or what might prevent them from using someone else's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543280</id>
	<title>Freedom?</title>
	<author>Glendale2x</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?</i></p><p>This plan assumes that your average Facebook user wants freedom and/or privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could such a plan work , or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom ? This plan assumes that your average Facebook user wants freedom and/or privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?This plan assumes that your average Facebook user wants freedom and/or privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</id>
	<title>Uhh...</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1268990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean people would actually have to SPEND MONEY?  And even worse, on an actual PHYSICAL OBJECT?  No way, not in a million years would something like this replace a simple, free online service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean people would actually have to SPEND MONEY ?
And even worse , on an actual PHYSICAL OBJECT ?
No way , not in a million years would something like this replace a simple , free online service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean people would actually have to SPEND MONEY?
And even worse, on an actual PHYSICAL OBJECT?
No way, not in a million years would something like this replace a simple, free online service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Bri3D</author>
	<datestamp>1268991300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just doesn't make any sense. People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people. Changing to a darknet model completely eliminates all these benefits. The only people who would buy such a device are people who shouldn't using online social networks anyway (making the import aspect odd).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just does n't make any sense .
People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people .
Changing to a darknet model completely eliminates all these benefits .
The only people who would buy such a device are people who should n't using online social networks anyway ( making the import aspect odd ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just doesn't make any sense.
People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people.
Changing to a darknet model completely eliminates all these benefits.
The only people who would buy such a device are people who shouldn't using online social networks anyway (making the import aspect odd).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545654</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269002580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK OK I get it you have a GIRLFRIEND.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK OK I get it you have a GIRLFRIEND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK OK I get it you have a GIRLFRIEND.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31551224</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269115740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget one quarter of one percent of 500 million is still over 1 million users. Not small for any market</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget one quarter of one percent of 500 million is still over 1 million users .
Not small for any market</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget one quarter of one percent of 500 million is still over 1 million users.
Not small for any market</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543932</id>
	<title>Re:Not sure I understand</title>
	<author>guanxi</author>
	<datestamp>1268993820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network?</i></p><p>Because the user would control the data and access to it. The data would be on your computer, not a commercial business' servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network ? Because the user would control the data and access to it .
The data would be on your computer , not a commercial business ' servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network?Because the user would control the data and access to it.
The data would be on your computer, not a commercial business' servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543310</id>
	<title>Nobody actually cares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go ahead, do a survey on the street. See how many people are worried about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , do a survey on the street .
See how many people are worried about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, do a survey on the street.
See how many people are worried about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545184</id>
	<title>I'd be for it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be for it - and be willing to spend $, as well.  You get what you pay for...and if privacy costs a bit, and i have full control over it - that sounds great to me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be for it - and be willing to spend $ , as well .
You get what you pay for...and if privacy costs a bit , and i have full control over it - that sounds great to me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be for it - and be willing to spend $, as well.
You get what you pay for...and if privacy costs a bit, and i have full control over it - that sounds great to me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544206</id>
	<title>...they do little to promote freedom...</title>
	<author>willoughby</author>
	<datestamp>1268994840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should they?<br><br>If you want you can include a "if you use this software you must also believe in &amp; promote the same political/social values I do" clause in your software license. Otherwise stfu.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should they ? If you want you can include a " if you use this software you must also believe in &amp; promote the same political/social values I do " clause in your software license .
Otherwise stfu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should they?If you want you can include a "if you use this software you must also believe in &amp; promote the same political/social values I do" clause in your software license.
Otherwise stfu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543732</id>
	<title>Leading by example</title>
	<author>millette</author>
	<datestamp>1268992920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word: <a href="http://autonomo.us/" title="autonomo.us">http://autonomo.us/</a> [autonomo.us]</p><p>Ok, well, two: <a href="http://www.opendefinition.org/ossd/" title="opendefinition.org">http://www.opendefinition.org/ossd/</a> [opendefinition.org]</p><p><a href="http://wordpress.org/" title="wordpress.org">http://wordpress.org/</a> [wordpress.org]  <a href="http://status.net/" title="status.net">http://status.net/</a> [status.net] and <a href="http://drupalgardens.com/" title="drupalgardens.com">http://drupalgardens.com/</a> [drupalgardens.com] are already leading by example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word : http : //autonomo.us/ [ autonomo.us ] Ok , well , two : http : //www.opendefinition.org/ossd/ [ opendefinition.org ] http : //wordpress.org/ [ wordpress.org ] http : //status.net/ [ status.net ] and http : //drupalgardens.com/ [ drupalgardens.com ] are already leading by example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word: http://autonomo.us/ [autonomo.us]Ok, well, two: http://www.opendefinition.org/ossd/ [opendefinition.org]http://wordpress.org/ [wordpress.org]  http://status.net/ [status.net] and http://drupalgardens.com/ [drupalgardens.com] are already leading by example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543474</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>K-Man</author>
	<datestamp>1268991720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3)  Farmville would be happy to make accounts portable.  Game makers aren't happy about being dependent on Facebook either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) Farmville would be happy to make accounts portable .
Game makers are n't happy about being dependent on Facebook either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3)  Farmville would be happy to make accounts portable.
Game makers aren't happy about being dependent on Facebook either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544806</id>
	<title>As usual ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268997600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual much of the Slash Dot crowd seems fixated on the negative.</p><p>I have plenty of FB friends, you know, real friends, like I actually know them, and all of us would love something like this.</p><p>What all you <i>elitists</i> are missing is that it could be a <b>great</b> nerd filter, and all those who don't care for the <i>AOL</i> mentality will have a network to ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual much of the Slash Dot crowd seems fixated on the negative.I have plenty of FB friends , you know , real friends , like I actually know them , and all of us would love something like this.What all you elitists are missing is that it could be a great nerd filter , and all those who do n't care for the AOL mentality will have a network to ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual much of the Slash Dot crowd seems fixated on the negative.I have plenty of FB friends, you know, real friends, like I actually know them, and all of us would love something like this.What all you elitists are missing is that it could be a great nerd filter, and all those who don't care for the AOL mentality will have a network to ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543550</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) New people couldn't find her.</p></div><p>Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.  She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.</p></div><p>Buy hardware. Plug it in. Insert CD. Let autoplay take you where you need to go. Still not as easy as creating a Facebook account but as easy as any bit of hardware you care to buy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).</p></div><p>Who says there can't be a apps for this system? It's apps with everything these days isn't it? And think of the million things a home server could do - VoIP, media server,... um... damn, I lack imagination. But you get the idea. It would be the king of app platforms, with webified interfaces for everything so you could get at your apps at work or on your phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) New people could n't find her.Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.2 ) This new plan is already WAY too complicated .
She ca n't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself , no matter how " easy " it is to install or point to.Buy hardware .
Plug it in .
Insert CD .
Let autoplay take you where you need to go .
Still not as easy as creating a Facebook account but as easy as any bit of hardware you care to buy.3 ) She ca n't play with her facebook farm ( s ) .Who says there ca n't be a apps for this system ?
It 's apps with everything these days is n't it ?
And think of the million things a home server could do - VoIP , media server,... um... damn , I lack imagination .
But you get the idea .
It would be the king of app platforms , with webified interfaces for everything so you could get at your apps at work or on your phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) New people couldn't find her.Create a searchable distributed bittorrent style network on which people share whatever information they want to make public.2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.
She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.Buy hardware.
Plug it in.
Insert CD.
Let autoplay take you where you need to go.
Still not as easy as creating a Facebook account but as easy as any bit of hardware you care to buy.3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).Who says there can't be a apps for this system?
It's apps with everything these days isn't it?
And think of the million things a home server could do - VoIP, media server,... um... damn, I lack imagination.
But you get the idea.
It would be the king of app platforms, with webified interfaces for everything so you could get at your apps at work or on your phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543756</id>
	<title>Um. So what?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.</p></div></blockquote><p>How is this a problem for free software?</p><blockquote><div><p>Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years, and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL, thinks that the free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware+software project.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Um, why?</p><blockquote><div><p>'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server. [Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done. It comes up, it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it, and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts. It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.' Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?</p></div></blockquote><p>Stallman, Moglen, and others seem absolutely dead set against people using cloud services, including free-as-in-beer services (even when they are also free-as-in-GPL systems, apparently), but what they haven't done is articulated a value proposition that's going to convince the average non-geek user (or, even, the average geek user) to drop off all existing remotely-hosted social networking services in favor of buying and administering their own server.</p><p>For users that are so inclined, open protocols for federation with free software implementations already exist, as do low cost server options on which they can run. At most, you need an integration and polishing project to serve the market to which dedicated devices would appeal.</p><p>But its not that big of a market, IMO. It may grow if the FCC succeeds in its goal of making high-speed (in both directions) broadband widely affordable, but then I suspect that the applications that will make having your own server worthwhile will also be ones that demand more than a wall-wart.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a problem for free software : most social networks are built using it , yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.How is this a problem for free software ? Eben Moglen , General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years , and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL , thinks that the free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware + software project .
Um , why ?
'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small , ARM-based , plug it into the wall , wall-wart server .
[ Such ] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price , and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet , and you 're done .
It comes up , it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it , and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications , closing all your accounts .
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends ' plugs , so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them , by having their friends holding the secure version of their data .
' Could such a plan work , or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom ? Stallman , Moglen , and others seem absolutely dead set against people using cloud services , including free-as-in-beer services ( even when they are also free-as-in-GPL systems , apparently ) , but what they have n't done is articulated a value proposition that 's going to convince the average non-geek user ( or , even , the average geek user ) to drop off all existing remotely-hosted social networking services in favor of buying and administering their own server.For users that are so inclined , open protocols for federation with free software implementations already exist , as do low cost server options on which they can run .
At most , you need an integration and polishing project to serve the market to which dedicated devices would appeal.But its not that big of a market , IMO .
It may grow if the FCC succeeds in its goal of making high-speed ( in both directions ) broadband widely affordable , but then I suspect that the applications that will make having your own server worthwhile will also be ones that demand more than a wall-wart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.How is this a problem for free software?Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation for 13 years, and the legal brains behind several versions of the GNU GPL, thinks that the free software world needs to fix this with a major new hardware+software project.
Um, why?
'The most attractive hardware is the ultra-small, ARM-based, plug it into the wall, wall-wart server.
[Such] an object can be sold to people at a very low one-time price, and brought home and plugged into an electrical outlet and plugged into a wall jack for the Ethernet, and you're done.
It comes up, it gets configured through your Web browser on whatever machine you want to have in the apartment with it, and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts.
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.
' Could such a plan work, or is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?Stallman, Moglen, and others seem absolutely dead set against people using cloud services, including free-as-in-beer services (even when they are also free-as-in-GPL systems, apparently), but what they haven't done is articulated a value proposition that's going to convince the average non-geek user (or, even, the average geek user) to drop off all existing remotely-hosted social networking services in favor of buying and administering their own server.For users that are so inclined, open protocols for federation with free software implementations already exist, as do low cost server options on which they can run.
At most, you need an integration and polishing project to serve the market to which dedicated devices would appeal.But its not that big of a market, IMO.
It may grow if the FCC succeeds in its goal of making high-speed (in both directions) broadband widely affordable, but then I suspect that the applications that will make having your own server worthwhile will also be ones that demand more than a wall-wart.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543176</id>
	<title>now go out there and be somebody!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>this is an excelent solution to a problem no one has.<br><br>great job as always.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is an excelent solution to a problem no one has.great job as always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is an excelent solution to a problem no one has.great job as always.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543666</id>
	<title>I have a Linux wall-wart plug</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268992500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps my imagination is limited, but I've never thought of the wall-wart as something that might "save me from my Facebook account".<br> <br>They don't make a JVM that works on top of the ARM processor, so you're stuck with python, php, and C++. (For its part, Facebook lets you run "Facebook apps".)<br> <br>I mostly use it for samba and svn. I do have a webserver set up on the plug but I've never posted a link to it anywhere or I'd be uploading warez and tunez all day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps my imagination is limited , but I 've never thought of the wall-wart as something that might " save me from my Facebook account " .
They do n't make a JVM that works on top of the ARM processor , so you 're stuck with python , php , and C + + .
( For its part , Facebook lets you run " Facebook apps " .
) I mostly use it for samba and svn .
I do have a webserver set up on the plug but I 've never posted a link to it anywhere or I 'd be uploading warez and tunez all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps my imagination is limited, but I've never thought of the wall-wart as something that might "save me from my Facebook account".
They don't make a JVM that works on top of the ARM processor, so you're stuck with python, php, and C++.
(For its part, Facebook lets you run "Facebook apps".
) I mostly use it for samba and svn.
I do have a webserver set up on the plug but I've never posted a link to it anywhere or I'd be uploading warez and tunez all day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543850</id>
	<title>Re:"freedom"</title>
	<author>guanxi</author>
	<datestamp>1268993520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.</i></p><p>Your choice to use Facebook has nothing to do with <i>freedom</i>. You are free to use Microsoft Word, but it's not Free Software. Freedom and "Free software" have specific meanings, whether or not you choose to care about them.</p><p>Will the fact that Facebook is not FOSS have an big impact on your life or on others? It's not a matter of opinion; it will or it won't no matter how you feel about it. I will say this: Society is almost always "safe" for the majority; it's the minority who do unpopular things that suffer. Freedom is not that you can do what you want, but that the people you dislike can do what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.Your choice to use Facebook has nothing to do with freedom .
You are free to use Microsoft Word , but it 's not Free Software .
Freedom and " Free software " have specific meanings , whether or not you choose to care about them.Will the fact that Facebook is not FOSS have an big impact on your life or on others ?
It 's not a matter of opinion ; it will or it wo n't no matter how you feel about it .
I will say this : Society is almost always " safe " for the majority ; it 's the minority who do unpopular things that suffer .
Freedom is not that you can do what you want , but that the people you dislike can do what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am getting pretty tired of other people telling me what freedom should mean to me.Your choice to use Facebook has nothing to do with freedom.
You are free to use Microsoft Word, but it's not Free Software.
Freedom and "Free software" have specific meanings, whether or not you choose to care about them.Will the fact that Facebook is not FOSS have an big impact on your life or on others?
It's not a matter of opinion; it will or it won't no matter how you feel about it.
I will say this: Society is almost always "safe" for the majority; it's the minority who do unpopular things that suffer.
Freedom is not that you can do what you want, but that the people you dislike can do what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544632</id>
	<title>I thought the last version of Opera handled this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that what the Unite collaboration stuff in Opera 10 was about?  Sure with all the dynamic IPs you need Opera's servers to keep updating your actual location with other users (until we get to IPv6 anyway), but these tools exist and you don't need some wall wart piece of ugly hardware to do it.</p><p>Besides when was closing a MyFace account ever that easy?  It doesn't eliminate the data you've put out there.  Oh, he just doesn't want to loose his contact list, I see.  I see the problem with this crap, but more open solutions already exist, few people know about them and even fewer use them.  I hate social networking sites, the only one I ever opened was LinkedIn before I even thought about how much it resembled MySpace (don't recall Facebook even having existed back then), I wish I could undo it, but the best I can do is ignore it.  I wish people cared, I care, I complain about it constantly.  It will do no good, but it makes me happy to pretend to make a stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what the Unite collaboration stuff in Opera 10 was about ?
Sure with all the dynamic IPs you need Opera 's servers to keep updating your actual location with other users ( until we get to IPv6 anyway ) , but these tools exist and you do n't need some wall wart piece of ugly hardware to do it.Besides when was closing a MyFace account ever that easy ?
It does n't eliminate the data you 've put out there .
Oh , he just does n't want to loose his contact list , I see .
I see the problem with this crap , but more open solutions already exist , few people know about them and even fewer use them .
I hate social networking sites , the only one I ever opened was LinkedIn before I even thought about how much it resembled MySpace ( do n't recall Facebook even having existed back then ) , I wish I could undo it , but the best I can do is ignore it .
I wish people cared , I care , I complain about it constantly .
It will do no good , but it makes me happy to pretend to make a stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what the Unite collaboration stuff in Opera 10 was about?
Sure with all the dynamic IPs you need Opera's servers to keep updating your actual location with other users (until we get to IPv6 anyway), but these tools exist and you don't need some wall wart piece of ugly hardware to do it.Besides when was closing a MyFace account ever that easy?
It doesn't eliminate the data you've put out there.
Oh, he just doesn't want to loose his contact list, I see.
I see the problem with this crap, but more open solutions already exist, few people know about them and even fewer use them.
I hate social networking sites, the only one I ever opened was LinkedIn before I even thought about how much it resembled MySpace (don't recall Facebook even having existed back then), I wish I could undo it, but the best I can do is ignore it.
I wish people cared, I care, I complain about it constantly.
It will do no good, but it makes me happy to pretend to make a stand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544362</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people.</p></div><p>Excellent post! This is my all-time favorite sentence! It's funny because it's true! EVERYONE is on Facebook but especially the wannabe trendy people! Hit the nail on the head<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people.Excellent post !
This is my all-time favorite sentence !
It 's funny because it 's true !
EVERYONE is on Facebook but especially the wannabe trendy people !
Hit the nail on the head : ) : ) : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people.Excellent post!
This is my all-time favorite sentence!
It's funny because it's true!
EVERYONE is on Facebook but especially the wannabe trendy people!
Hit the nail on the head :) :) :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548060</id>
	<title>Re:I don't like it. BUT!</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1269076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1588910&amp;cid=31547938" title="slashdot.org">Yet another set of musings from a thread on this story.</a> [slashdot.org]<br>To search for people, the public profile pages mentioned in the link can be left as searchable html pages, or one could choose to subscribe to a search application, which can index some of your user data (as much or little as you permit), although I envisage that for the most part people would hand out their IDs in person, much like their IM details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another set of musings from a thread on this story .
[ slashdot.org ] To search for people , the public profile pages mentioned in the link can be left as searchable html pages , or one could choose to subscribe to a search application , which can index some of your user data ( as much or little as you permit ) , although I envisage that for the most part people would hand out their IDs in person , much like their IM details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another set of musings from a thread on this story.
[slashdot.org]To search for people, the public profile pages mentioned in the link can be left as searchable html pages, or one could choose to subscribe to a search application, which can index some of your user data (as much or little as you permit), although I envisage that for the most part people would hand out their IDs in person, much like their IM details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543266</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, its a dumb plan.  My girlfriend is on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure she would have the following objections:</p><p>1) New people couldn't find her.<br>
2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.  She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.<br>
3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).</p></div><p>What about 4) Who's going to randomly click on the cute pics that turn up while I play 'Facebook Roulette'?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , its a dumb plan .
My girlfriend is on Facebook , and I 'm pretty sure she would have the following objections : 1 ) New people could n't find her .
2 ) This new plan is already WAY too complicated .
She ca n't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself , no matter how " easy " it is to install or point to .
3 ) She ca n't play with her facebook farm ( s ) .What about 4 ) Who 's going to randomly click on the cute pics that turn up while I play 'Facebook Roulette ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, its a dumb plan.
My girlfriend is on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure she would have the following objections:1) New people couldn't find her.
2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.
She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.
3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).What about 4) Who's going to randomly click on the cute pics that turn up while I play 'Facebook Roulette'?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543676</id>
	<title>Social networks are for sharing information.</title>
	<author>LordKazan</author>
	<datestamp>1268992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social networks are where you go to share information, if there is information on that social network that you don't want in a public place <b>you</b> shouldn't have posted it in the first place.</p><p>Social networks are like public spaces, don't expect anything you do there to be private information.</p><p>The entire idea of privacy on a social network is moronic - that's not what they were designed for.  The only things I've put on my FB account are things I'm fine with people knowing.</p><p>Common fucking sense people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social networks are where you go to share information , if there is information on that social network that you do n't want in a public place you should n't have posted it in the first place.Social networks are like public spaces , do n't expect anything you do there to be private information.The entire idea of privacy on a social network is moronic - that 's not what they were designed for .
The only things I 've put on my FB account are things I 'm fine with people knowing.Common fucking sense people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social networks are where you go to share information, if there is information on that social network that you don't want in a public place you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.Social networks are like public spaces, don't expect anything you do there to be private information.The entire idea of privacy on a social network is moronic - that's not what they were designed for.
The only things I've put on my FB account are things I'm fine with people knowing.Common fucking sense people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543512</id>
	<title>Re:"freedom"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People seem to confused the "freedom"  "slavery" continuum with the "privacy"  "openness" continuum.</p><p>There's no contradiction in Facebook being build using free software, and then being completely open with people's data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to confused the " freedom " " slavery " continuum with the " privacy " " openness " continuum.There 's no contradiction in Facebook being build using free software , and then being completely open with people 's data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to confused the "freedom"  "slavery" continuum with the "privacy"  "openness" continuum.There's no contradiction in Facebook being build using free software, and then being completely open with people's data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548530</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then sell it with lies.<br>
semi-lies work too.<br> <br>
Pretend it is more secure, it allows more things, it is more ecological, it is trendy, it makes your privacy safer, it allows you private filesharing that the law tolerates...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then sell it with lies .
semi-lies work too .
Pretend it is more secure , it allows more things , it is more ecological , it is trendy , it makes your privacy safer , it allows you private filesharing that the law tolerates.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then sell it with lies.
semi-lies work too.
Pretend it is more secure, it allows more things, it is more ecological, it is trendy, it makes your privacy safer, it allows you private filesharing that the law tolerates...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543492</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1268991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.</p></div><p>No, it's not.  Lest you forget, those "traffic" stats came with many qualifiers and caviats, which basically rendered the whole "OMG Facebook got more traffic than Google!" assertion false.  (Of course, that didn't stop Katie Couric from reporting as a fact, with no reference to said qualifiers and caveats.)</p><p>I don't really take issue with what you're saying here.  I just wanted to point out that the report was bogus, and we of all internet communities should not parrot it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that facebook is now the # 1 site when it comes to traffic.No , it 's not .
Lest you forget , those " traffic " stats came with many qualifiers and caviats , which basically rendered the whole " OMG Facebook got more traffic than Google !
" assertion false .
( Of course , that did n't stop Katie Couric from reporting as a fact , with no reference to said qualifiers and caveats .
) I do n't really take issue with what you 're saying here .
I just wanted to point out that the report was bogus , and we of all internet communities should not parrot it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.No, it's not.
Lest you forget, those "traffic" stats came with many qualifiers and caviats, which basically rendered the whole "OMG Facebook got more traffic than Google!
" assertion false.
(Of course, that didn't stop Katie Couric from reporting as a fact, with no reference to said qualifiers and caveats.
)I don't really take issue with what you're saying here.
I just wanted to point out that the report was bogus, and we of all internet communities should not parrot it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545200</id>
	<title>Apple iGroups</title>
	<author>joeflies</author>
	<datestamp>1268999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article's idea sounds similar in concept with the rumored Apple iGroups, which seems to be about using the iphone as the place you store your encrypted social media/content and you share it through an Apple hub service.

<a href="http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/03/19/new-iphone-4g-social-networking-igroups-patent/" title="product-reviews.net">Apple iGroups Rumor</a> [product-reviews.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article 's idea sounds similar in concept with the rumored Apple iGroups , which seems to be about using the iphone as the place you store your encrypted social media/content and you share it through an Apple hub service .
Apple iGroups Rumor [ product-reviews.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article's idea sounds similar in concept with the rumored Apple iGroups, which seems to be about using the iphone as the place you store your encrypted social media/content and you share it through an Apple hub service.
Apple iGroups Rumor [product-reviews.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543272</id>
	<title>Fantastic Idea</title>
	<author>zerosomething</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think it's a fantastic idea but social networks are maybe the wrong model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think it 's a fantastic idea but social networks are maybe the wrong model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think it's a fantastic idea but social networks are maybe the wrong model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546532</id>
	<title>To catch a thief</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when someone breaks in to your house and takes your wall wart?<br>Or, your pissed off ex takes it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when someone breaks in to your house and takes your wall wart ? Or , your pissed off ex takes it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when someone breaks in to your house and takes your wall wart?Or, your pissed off ex takes it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546556</id>
	<title>Re:Sheeple</title>
	<author>bheerssen</author>
	<datestamp>1269010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, social networking could also be the most effective tool for <em>preserving</em> freedom. It's all in the implementation, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , social networking could also be the most effective tool for preserving freedom .
It 's all in the implementation , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, social networking could also be the most effective tool for preserving freedom.
It's all in the implementation, isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546162</id>
	<title>This post is bad and you should feel bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot understand why this got posted. All I see is a rambling paragraph with a rather poorly thought out concept. Seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not understand why this got posted .
All I see is a rambling paragraph with a rather poorly thought out concept .
Seriously /. , seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot understand why this got posted.
All I see is a rambling paragraph with a rather poorly thought out concept.
Seriously /., seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545970</id>
	<title>We need a semantic desktop...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1269004500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From: <a href="http://www.semanticdesktop.org/" title="semanticdesktop.org">http://www.semanticdesktop.org/</a> [semanticdesktop.org]<br>"The Semantic Web holds promises for information organization and selective access, providing standards means for formulating and distributing metadata and Ontologies. Still, we miss a wide use of Semantic Web technologies on personal computers. The use of ontologies, metadata annotations, and semantic web protocols on desktop computers will allow the integration of desktop applications and the web, enabling a much more focused and integrated personal information management as well as focused information distribution and collaboration on the Web beyond sending emails. The vision of the Semantic Desktop for personal information management and collaboration has been around for a long time: visionaries like Vanevar Bush and Doug Engelbart have formulated and partially realized these ideas. However, for the largest part their ideas remained a vision for far too long since the foundational technologies necessary to render their ideas into reality were not yet invented ? these ideas were proposing jet planes, where the rest of the world had just invented the parts to build a bicycle. However, recently the computer science community has developed the means to make this vision a reality:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From : http : //www.semanticdesktop.org/ [ semanticdesktop.org ] " The Semantic Web holds promises for information organization and selective access , providing standards means for formulating and distributing metadata and Ontologies .
Still , we miss a wide use of Semantic Web technologies on personal computers .
The use of ontologies , metadata annotations , and semantic web protocols on desktop computers will allow the integration of desktop applications and the web , enabling a much more focused and integrated personal information management as well as focused information distribution and collaboration on the Web beyond sending emails .
The vision of the Semantic Desktop for personal information management and collaboration has been around for a long time : visionaries like Vanevar Bush and Doug Engelbart have formulated and partially realized these ideas .
However , for the largest part their ideas remained a vision for far too long since the foundational technologies necessary to render their ideas into reality were not yet invented ?
these ideas were proposing jet planes , where the rest of the world had just invented the parts to build a bicycle .
However , recently the computer science community has developed the means to make this vision a reality : ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From: http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ [semanticdesktop.org]"The Semantic Web holds promises for information organization and selective access, providing standards means for formulating and distributing metadata and Ontologies.
Still, we miss a wide use of Semantic Web technologies on personal computers.
The use of ontologies, metadata annotations, and semantic web protocols on desktop computers will allow the integration of desktop applications and the web, enabling a much more focused and integrated personal information management as well as focused information distribution and collaboration on the Web beyond sending emails.
The vision of the Semantic Desktop for personal information management and collaboration has been around for a long time: visionaries like Vanevar Bush and Doug Engelbart have formulated and partially realized these ideas.
However, for the largest part their ideas remained a vision for far too long since the foundational technologies necessary to render their ideas into reality were not yet invented ?
these ideas were proposing jet planes, where the rest of the world had just invented the parts to build a bicycle.
However, recently the computer science community has developed the means to make this vision a reality: ..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546474</id>
	<title>I like...</title>
	<author>dos4who</author>
	<datestamp>1269009240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..the idea of the free software arena to free up my privacy; What I don't get is the reliance on a specific piece of hardware connected to the internet to do it.  All I can see from this is history repeating itself.  Remember the Gateway Connected Touch Pad, the ePods, the Websurfer Pro, et al... these were all dedicated internet appliances. The business plans all failed miserably; however, they all made nice, cheap (and in some cases, free) pieces of hackable cumputing hardware.. I should Know... I own all of the above, and more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<p>
Hrmmm, on second thought, bring on that wall-wart thingy.... maybe I can turn it into a nice little tftp server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..the idea of the free software arena to free up my privacy ; What I do n't get is the reliance on a specific piece of hardware connected to the internet to do it .
All I can see from this is history repeating itself .
Remember the Gateway Connected Touch Pad , the ePods , the Websurfer Pro , et al... these were all dedicated internet appliances .
The business plans all failed miserably ; however , they all made nice , cheap ( and in some cases , free ) pieces of hackable cumputing hardware.. I should Know... I own all of the above , and more : ) Hrmmm , on second thought , bring on that wall-wart thingy.... maybe I can turn it into a nice little tftp server : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..the idea of the free software arena to free up my privacy; What I don't get is the reliance on a specific piece of hardware connected to the internet to do it.
All I can see from this is history repeating itself.
Remember the Gateway Connected Touch Pad, the ePods, the Websurfer Pro, et al... these were all dedicated internet appliances.
The business plans all failed miserably; however, they all made nice, cheap (and in some cases, free) pieces of hackable cumputing hardware.. I should Know... I own all of the above, and more :)

Hrmmm, on second thought, bring on that wall-wart thingy.... maybe I can turn it into a nice little tftp server :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547808</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>GastronomicalEvent</author>
	<datestamp>1269027660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Riiiight... Girlfriend would have trouble playing facebook farm.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Riiiight... Girlfriend would have trouble playing facebook farm .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riiiight... Girlfriend would have trouble playing facebook farm.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543556</id>
	<title>Freedom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how Facebook takes away my freedom.  I am perfectly free to not use almost any private service or good if it does not meet my needs.  People don't have a "right to Facebook" and then get to decide that that right includes ironclad privacy protections (unless those protections are imposed on industry by legislation, which, in the US they really aren't in any meaningful way.)  That's what consumer choice and the market are for.  I personally decided that I like Facebook's features and don't really have much of any fear over its privacy implications.  Unlike some, a mega-corp having transactional and or behavioral knowledge of me is not my worst nightmare, it's a mild inconvenience compared to the other risks in my life.  I don't quiver over it, nor am I outraged by it, nor certainly would I engage in some sort of effort to protest, prevent, or circumvent it.  If you would like to go to those lengths because of your concerns, more power to you, but I really doubt that there's a silent majority just waiting for someone to say something.  Really, I couldn't care less, and most people, I think, are with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how Facebook takes away my freedom .
I am perfectly free to not use almost any private service or good if it does not meet my needs .
People do n't have a " right to Facebook " and then get to decide that that right includes ironclad privacy protections ( unless those protections are imposed on industry by legislation , which , in the US they really are n't in any meaningful way .
) That 's what consumer choice and the market are for .
I personally decided that I like Facebook 's features and do n't really have much of any fear over its privacy implications .
Unlike some , a mega-corp having transactional and or behavioral knowledge of me is not my worst nightmare , it 's a mild inconvenience compared to the other risks in my life .
I do n't quiver over it , nor am I outraged by it , nor certainly would I engage in some sort of effort to protest , prevent , or circumvent it .
If you would like to go to those lengths because of your concerns , more power to you , but I really doubt that there 's a silent majority just waiting for someone to say something .
Really , I could n't care less , and most people , I think , are with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how Facebook takes away my freedom.
I am perfectly free to not use almost any private service or good if it does not meet my needs.
People don't have a "right to Facebook" and then get to decide that that right includes ironclad privacy protections (unless those protections are imposed on industry by legislation, which, in the US they really aren't in any meaningful way.
)  That's what consumer choice and the market are for.
I personally decided that I like Facebook's features and don't really have much of any fear over its privacy implications.
Unlike some, a mega-corp having transactional and or behavioral knowledge of me is not my worst nightmare, it's a mild inconvenience compared to the other risks in my life.
I don't quiver over it, nor am I outraged by it, nor certainly would I engage in some sort of effort to protest, prevent, or circumvent it.
If you would like to go to those lengths because of your concerns, more power to you, but I really doubt that there's a silent majority just waiting for someone to say something.
Really, I couldn't care less, and most people, I think, are with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549794</id>
	<title>Re:He is talking about a home page isn't he?</title>
	<author>fat\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1269103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are these "friend" things you speak about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are these " friend " things you speak about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are these "friend" things you speak about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543248</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1268990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, I would not go that far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , I would not go that far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, I would not go that far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549532</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's approximately what I used to say about Altavista and Hotmail. I'm not gonna make similar arguments again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's approximately what I used to say about Altavista and Hotmail .
I 'm not gon na make similar arguments again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's approximately what I used to say about Altavista and Hotmail.
I'm not gonna make similar arguments again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547288</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>numbski</author>
	<datestamp>1269019320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What needs to exist somehow is a zero-knowledge data approach that nothing is viewable to the provider beyond that which is explicitly marked as "public" profile information.  Of course that requires effort.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What needs to exist somehow is a zero-knowledge data approach that nothing is viewable to the provider beyond that which is explicitly marked as " public " profile information .
Of course that requires effort .
: \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What needs to exist somehow is a zero-knowledge data approach that nothing is viewable to the provider beyond that which is explicitly marked as "public" profile information.
Of course that requires effort.
:\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543404</id>
	<title>Is it to late?</title>
	<author>s122604</author>
	<datestamp>1268991420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?</p></div><p> Yes.

</p><p>Next thread please...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom ?
Yes . Next thread please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?
Yes.

Next thread please...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544440</id>
	<title>LOG OFF</title>
	<author>BumpyCarrot</author>
	<datestamp>1268995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternatively you can just, y'know, log off.  The websites only know so much as you let them know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively you can just , y'know , log off .
The websites only know so much as you let them know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively you can just, y'know, log off.
The websites only know so much as you let them know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, its a dumb plan.  My girlfriend is on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure she would have the following objections:</p><p>1) New people couldn't find her.<br>2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.  She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.<br>3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , its a dumb plan .
My girlfriend is on Facebook , and I 'm pretty sure she would have the following objections : 1 ) New people could n't find her.2 ) This new plan is already WAY too complicated .
She ca n't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself , no matter how " easy " it is to install or point to.3 ) She ca n't play with her facebook farm ( s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, its a dumb plan.
My girlfriend is on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure she would have the following objections:1) New people couldn't find her.2) This new plan is already WAY too complicated.
She can't point a browser at some weird piece of hardware that she has to install herself, no matter how "easy" it is to install or point to.3) She can't play with her facebook farm(s).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543504</id>
	<title>I want a vpn device: an F&amp;F server network</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Small, headless, set top size, external usb storage</p><p>Running:<br>tinc<br>web proxy<br>samba/gnutella<br>Myth</p><p>some other stuff maybe.</p><p>Course. I can build my own easily &amp; as you say, I doubt anyone else needs anything similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Small , headless , set top size , external usb storageRunning : tincweb proxysamba/gnutellaMythsome other stuff maybe.Course .
I can build my own easily &amp; as you say , I doubt anyone else needs anything similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small, headless, set top size, external usb storageRunning:tincweb proxysamba/gnutellaMythsome other stuff maybe.Course.
I can build my own easily &amp; as you say, I doubt anyone else needs anything similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544734</id>
	<title>Way too late.</title>
	<author>Majestix</author>
	<datestamp>1268997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without some sort of major upheaval in the social networking space, this will only<br>take off among the extremely tech savy among us (i dont wanna use the G word).<br>Its also over complicated for the average Joe.</p><p>Nice idea, way too late.  One wonders if this ever would've been a viable option.</p><p>Thats my 2cents...adjusted for inflation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without some sort of major upheaval in the social networking space , this will onlytake off among the extremely tech savy among us ( i dont wan na use the G word ) .Its also over complicated for the average Joe.Nice idea , way too late .
One wonders if this ever would 've been a viable option.Thats my 2cents...adjusted for inflation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without some sort of major upheaval in the social networking space, this will onlytake off among the extremely tech savy among us (i dont wanna use the G word).Its also over complicated for the average Joe.Nice idea, way too late.
One wonders if this ever would've been a viable option.Thats my 2cents...adjusted for inflation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546834</id>
	<title>Go ALL the way.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could definitely work.  But nix the ethernet jack, give it wifi, and a rechargeable battery.  Make it the same as an ipad in form factor, but on FOSS OS.</p><p>While you're at it, I have ideas for the new FOSS OS/Social Network:</p><p>First, don't close your FB MS and other social network accounts.  Leave them open, and automagically allow all of your friends updates etc. to come over as if they were native.  There will always be some friend who is stuck in the dark ages on geocities that you might need to still talk to (that example was intentionally bad).</p><p>Second, we need a more intuitive interface.  Clone FaceBook and MySpace exactly, and set those as options, but then also make a vastly superior interface.  I would use one of the many great GPL'ed 3d engines, such as ioquake3.  Then let everyone's webcam build a custom 3d avatar based on their actual face/body, and have their avatars be able to interact real time on screen, complete with real time 3d positioned VOIP.  Of course this functionality could be turned on or off with a simple mouse click.</p><p>In addition, allow a 3rd party plugin system that can create whole new 3d experiences in this virtual world.  Build a couple of fast easy ones right in: Chess, checkers, Cards.....  And allow anyone to autmagically sign on to their FB, MS, email, IRC, AIM, hotmail, yahoo, or etc. and be able to talk with, and PLAY a card game with as many of their other friends as are currently online.</p><p>Third, make all the tools to interact very, very easy to do from an android phone.  Pictures, Audio and Videos should be able to be uploaded instantly, and in open formats like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.PNG and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.OGG.  In addition, Video and Audio should be possible to broadcast real time, to any other user with a FOSSpace account.</p><p>With this design, you could easily supplant YouTube, Picasa, MySpace, Facebook, and all other social networking sites, very quickly.  In addition, as most people would only require this and a Firefox plugin, you could also supplant Mac and Windows, virtually over night.</p><p>The final part of my plan to supplant corporations with personal freedom involves replacing the ISPs.  With a system of FOSS routers and repeaters, and with all devices and phones acting as potential relays for a truly open ad hoc networking system, we could easily rest control of the entire internet from corporations and governments and truly begin a world of freedom and open information for all.</p><p>Other "Plugins" that I would like to see implemented in the 3d virtual space:<br>Boggle<br>SNES emu<br>N64 emu<br>NES emu<br>Sega emu<br>Mame emu<br>Urban Terror Portal (just walk your avatar into a door to join a server)<br>Wow Portal (though I'd like to replace WoW with a FOSS clone ASAP.<br>GTA San Andreas Portal (this would require a whole new FOSS clone of the original game.  Lots of work this bit.)<br>Civ 2 emu.  Something you could play real time with your friends in VOIP conversation still.  And a Civ 2 clone because it was more fun than later version.<br>Real Time Music Collaboration tools.  A jack for your guitar/bass/keys/violin/drums to hook up directly and allow your instrument to be heard real time while your avatar moves real time to play exactly as you are playing.  This would make rehearsal SO MUCH BETTER for me in both of my bands.</p><p>Do all of this, you could beat apple and their iphone, you could beat skype, you could beat windows, you could beat myspace, facebook, and even google.</p><p>I'm willing to beta test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could definitely work .
But nix the ethernet jack , give it wifi , and a rechargeable battery .
Make it the same as an ipad in form factor , but on FOSS OS.While you 're at it , I have ideas for the new FOSS OS/Social Network : First , do n't close your FB MS and other social network accounts .
Leave them open , and automagically allow all of your friends updates etc .
to come over as if they were native .
There will always be some friend who is stuck in the dark ages on geocities that you might need to still talk to ( that example was intentionally bad ) .Second , we need a more intuitive interface .
Clone FaceBook and MySpace exactly , and set those as options , but then also make a vastly superior interface .
I would use one of the many great GPL'ed 3d engines , such as ioquake3 .
Then let everyone 's webcam build a custom 3d avatar based on their actual face/body , and have their avatars be able to interact real time on screen , complete with real time 3d positioned VOIP .
Of course this functionality could be turned on or off with a simple mouse click.In addition , allow a 3rd party plugin system that can create whole new 3d experiences in this virtual world .
Build a couple of fast easy ones right in : Chess , checkers , Cards..... And allow anyone to autmagically sign on to their FB , MS , email , IRC , AIM , hotmail , yahoo , or etc .
and be able to talk with , and PLAY a card game with as many of their other friends as are currently online.Third , make all the tools to interact very , very easy to do from an android phone .
Pictures , Audio and Videos should be able to be uploaded instantly , and in open formats like .PNG and .OGG .
In addition , Video and Audio should be possible to broadcast real time , to any other user with a FOSSpace account.With this design , you could easily supplant YouTube , Picasa , MySpace , Facebook , and all other social networking sites , very quickly .
In addition , as most people would only require this and a Firefox plugin , you could also supplant Mac and Windows , virtually over night.The final part of my plan to supplant corporations with personal freedom involves replacing the ISPs .
With a system of FOSS routers and repeaters , and with all devices and phones acting as potential relays for a truly open ad hoc networking system , we could easily rest control of the entire internet from corporations and governments and truly begin a world of freedom and open information for all.Other " Plugins " that I would like to see implemented in the 3d virtual space : BoggleSNES emuN64 emuNES emuSega emuMame emuUrban Terror Portal ( just walk your avatar into a door to join a server ) Wow Portal ( though I 'd like to replace WoW with a FOSS clone ASAP.GTA San Andreas Portal ( this would require a whole new FOSS clone of the original game .
Lots of work this bit .
) Civ 2 emu .
Something you could play real time with your friends in VOIP conversation still .
And a Civ 2 clone because it was more fun than later version.Real Time Music Collaboration tools .
A jack for your guitar/bass/keys/violin/drums to hook up directly and allow your instrument to be heard real time while your avatar moves real time to play exactly as you are playing .
This would make rehearsal SO MUCH BETTER for me in both of my bands.Do all of this , you could beat apple and their iphone , you could beat skype , you could beat windows , you could beat myspace , facebook , and even google.I 'm willing to beta test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could definitely work.
But nix the ethernet jack, give it wifi, and a rechargeable battery.
Make it the same as an ipad in form factor, but on FOSS OS.While you're at it, I have ideas for the new FOSS OS/Social Network:First, don't close your FB MS and other social network accounts.
Leave them open, and automagically allow all of your friends updates etc.
to come over as if they were native.
There will always be some friend who is stuck in the dark ages on geocities that you might need to still talk to (that example was intentionally bad).Second, we need a more intuitive interface.
Clone FaceBook and MySpace exactly, and set those as options, but then also make a vastly superior interface.
I would use one of the many great GPL'ed 3d engines, such as ioquake3.
Then let everyone's webcam build a custom 3d avatar based on their actual face/body, and have their avatars be able to interact real time on screen, complete with real time 3d positioned VOIP.
Of course this functionality could be turned on or off with a simple mouse click.In addition, allow a 3rd party plugin system that can create whole new 3d experiences in this virtual world.
Build a couple of fast easy ones right in: Chess, checkers, Cards.....  And allow anyone to autmagically sign on to their FB, MS, email, IRC, AIM, hotmail, yahoo, or etc.
and be able to talk with, and PLAY a card game with as many of their other friends as are currently online.Third, make all the tools to interact very, very easy to do from an android phone.
Pictures, Audio and Videos should be able to be uploaded instantly, and in open formats like .PNG and .OGG.
In addition, Video and Audio should be possible to broadcast real time, to any other user with a FOSSpace account.With this design, you could easily supplant YouTube, Picasa, MySpace, Facebook, and all other social networking sites, very quickly.
In addition, as most people would only require this and a Firefox plugin, you could also supplant Mac and Windows, virtually over night.The final part of my plan to supplant corporations with personal freedom involves replacing the ISPs.
With a system of FOSS routers and repeaters, and with all devices and phones acting as potential relays for a truly open ad hoc networking system, we could easily rest control of the entire internet from corporations and governments and truly begin a world of freedom and open information for all.Other "Plugins" that I would like to see implemented in the 3d virtual space:BoggleSNES emuN64 emuNES emuSega emuMame emuUrban Terror Portal (just walk your avatar into a door to join a server)Wow Portal (though I'd like to replace WoW with a FOSS clone ASAP.GTA San Andreas Portal (this would require a whole new FOSS clone of the original game.
Lots of work this bit.
)Civ 2 emu.
Something you could play real time with your friends in VOIP conversation still.
And a Civ 2 clone because it was more fun than later version.Real Time Music Collaboration tools.
A jack for your guitar/bass/keys/violin/drums to hook up directly and allow your instrument to be heard real time while your avatar moves real time to play exactly as you are playing.
This would make rehearsal SO MUCH BETTER for me in both of my bands.Do all of this, you could beat apple and their iphone, you could beat skype, you could beat windows, you could beat myspace, facebook, and even google.I'm willing to beta test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543672</id>
	<title>what on earth are you talking about?</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1268992500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, the people at facebook "constantly monitor users" and "do little to promote freedom"?  And we wonder why the FSF is written off as a fringe organization?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a problem for free software : most social networks are built using it , yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.So , the people at facebook " constantly monitor users " and " do little to promote freedom " ?
And we wonder why the FSF is written off as a fringe organization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a problem for free software: most social networks are built using it, yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom.So, the people at facebook "constantly monitor users" and "do little to promote freedom"?
And we wonder why the FSF is written off as a fringe organization?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543828</id>
	<title>Re:I don't like it. BUT!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268993400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol, similar to email/Jabber/etc. Standard IM protocols along with standard (XML based?) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other, and find friends.</p></div></blockquote><p>Plenty of such things exist already. In terms of communications protocols covering parts of this space, you have (among others):</p><p>E-mail<br>HTTP<br>XMPP<br>PubSubHubbub<br>Google Wave Federation Protocol<br>WebFinger</p><p>For social content, you have (again, among others):<br>Atom<br>FOAF<br>XFN</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol , similar to email/Jabber/etc .
Standard IM protocols along with standard ( XML based ?
) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other , and find friends.Plenty of such things exist already .
In terms of communications protocols covering parts of this space , you have ( among others ) : E-mailHTTPXMPPPubSubHubbubGoogle Wave Federation ProtocolWebFingerFor social content , you have ( again , among others ) : AtomFOAFXFN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have pondered the idea of a decentralized Social networking protocol, similar to email/Jabber/etc.
Standard IM protocols along with standard (XML based?
) data formatting for social information would be used to allow socialnetworking servers to talk to each other, and find friends.Plenty of such things exist already.
In terms of communications protocols covering parts of this space, you have (among others):E-mailHTTPXMPPPubSubHubbubGoogle Wave Federation ProtocolWebFingerFor social content, you have (again, among others):AtomFOAFXFN
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544528</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So replace all of my multitude of free accounts on established networks for a device I have to buy and maintain myself on a distributed and not necessarily successful or useful network?</p><p>Yeah, how about not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So replace all of my multitude of free accounts on established networks for a device I have to buy and maintain myself on a distributed and not necessarily successful or useful network ? Yeah , how about not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So replace all of my multitude of free accounts on established networks for a device I have to buy and maintain myself on a distributed and not necessarily successful or useful network?Yeah, how about not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543286</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Marxist Hacker 42</author>
	<datestamp>1268991060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only do most users not care- but the few who do aren't going to want an either-or system that blocks out their friends who are less technically adept.</p><p>" and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts."</p><p>Is not a reasonable way to go about it.</p><p>Replace that line with "and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, and syncs it daily, giving you an always-on local server *combining* updates from several social networking sites" and I'd consider paying up to $500 for such a device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do most users not care- but the few who do are n't going to want an either-or system that blocks out their friends who are less technically adept .
" and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications , closing all your accounts .
" Is not a reasonable way to go about it.Replace that line with " and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications , and syncs it daily , giving you an always-on local server * combining * updates from several social networking sites " and I 'd consider paying up to $ 500 for such a device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do most users not care- but the few who do aren't going to want an either-or system that blocks out their friends who are less technically adept.
" and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts.
"Is not a reasonable way to go about it.Replace that line with "and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, and syncs it daily, giving you an always-on local server *combining* updates from several social networking sites" and I'd consider paying up to $500 for such a device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1268992740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Speaking as one who uses Free rather than Open Source to characterize software, and admires Richard Stallman....
</p><p>
Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom?  Isn't it enough that a whole lot of it does?  And why shouldn't I feel free to put selected information about myself in the public view?  (Seriously, you're all welcome to whatever is on my Facebook account.  There are things I don't want the whole world to know about, and they're not on FB.  I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales, but I don't have to put stuff on it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as one who uses Free rather than Open Source to characterize software , and admires Richard Stallman... . Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom ?
Is n't it enough that a whole lot of it does ?
And why should n't I feel free to put selected information about myself in the public view ?
( Seriously , you 're all welcome to whatever is on my Facebook account .
There are things I do n't want the whole world to know about , and they 're not on FB .
I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales , but I do n't have to put stuff on it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Speaking as one who uses Free rather than Open Source to characterize software, and admires Richard Stallman....

Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom?
Isn't it enough that a whole lot of it does?
And why shouldn't I feel free to put selected information about myself in the public view?
(Seriously, you're all welcome to whatever is on my Facebook account.
There are things I don't want the whole world to know about, and they're not on FB.
I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales, but I don't have to put stuff on it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543282</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The network effect has already kicked in.  If you want to replace Facebook it will have to be with a product that offers more value on an individual user basis AND can interface with Facebook so users will have access to those social networks as well as access to the additional functionality.  If you start there you can wean people off of the older application.  While the approach you describe may give users more freedom from corporate/government/whoever control it gives them less freedom to do the activities they now do on the social networking site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The network effect has already kicked in .
If you want to replace Facebook it will have to be with a product that offers more value on an individual user basis AND can interface with Facebook so users will have access to those social networks as well as access to the additional functionality .
If you start there you can wean people off of the older application .
While the approach you describe may give users more freedom from corporate/government/whoever control it gives them less freedom to do the activities they now do on the social networking site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The network effect has already kicked in.
If you want to replace Facebook it will have to be with a product that offers more value on an individual user basis AND can interface with Facebook so users will have access to those social networks as well as access to the additional functionality.
If you start there you can wean people off of the older application.
While the approach you describe may give users more freedom from corporate/government/whoever control it gives them less freedom to do the activities they now do on the social networking site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548642</id>
	<title>Re:I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>mjeffers</author>
	<datestamp>1269090300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're totally right, Facebook was completely wrong for you. A device like this sounds like it would really work for you. It's very focused on preserving privacy and giving lots of control over information, highly technical and sophisticated, allows you to write as much as you want, and is completely new and unknown. Unfortunately if you want to use it to socialize with the unwashed masses all of these reasons will stop them from using it with you. They LIKE all the stuff you hated about Facebook. For them it's benefits are:</p><p><b>Simple</b><br>They just type something and click the button and their friends can see stuff. Sometimes they change the UI and everyone spends a day or two talking about how the old way was better until they get used to it but it's still pretty easy. To find your friends you tell it where you grew up, where you worked or what your email is. You pick them by their names or pictures. Simple. The lack of lots of control and options are part of this. As more and more people are starting to notice or hear about how Facebook can expose your data they are having to add more controls but simplicity will always be more appealing to most people.</p><p><b>Popular</b><br>Everyone is on Facebook!!! (they love exclamation points too -- I know...). People you haven't seen in years are on there and sometimes someone you knew from a long time ago will find you. Isn't that great! Popularity and trendiness are a great feature of Facebook and other products for a lot of people. They love joining groups and knowing that lots of people love the same things they do. All of these things were popular pre-social networks and Facebook has done an adequate job of bringing them to the masses.</p><p><b>Fun</b><br>Pictures and games!!! You get to see pictures of other people doing silly things. You get to see pictures of your sister's kid building a snowman and strange places where old friends go on vacation. And they have games too! Not complicated games or games that take a long time but simple things that you can play with your friends if you have a minute or two. Casual gaming's appeal is that you can learn the rules quickly, play during breaks at work or home, and play with people you know (Farmville and the like).</p><p>You have different values and interests than the average person on the street but you probably know this already. I hope this gives you a little insight into some of the reasons why Facebook is appealing to a lot of people out there.</p><p>My problem with this product is that I think its audience will naturally be limited and that will decrease its value as a social networking appliance for a lot of people. If it only appeals to a small and technical audience why bother with hardware at all? Just make a software version of it and call it a server. The people who will use it will know that means put it on a machine you leave on and connected and they might already have one around.</p><p>Depending on your skill set you might even be able to put something like this together out of existing tools. If you have a couple of friends who share your interests and are into technology a solution like this could work for you. You'd give up randomly bumping into that kid you knew when you were 9 but you may not see this as a valuable feature anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're totally right , Facebook was completely wrong for you .
A device like this sounds like it would really work for you .
It 's very focused on preserving privacy and giving lots of control over information , highly technical and sophisticated , allows you to write as much as you want , and is completely new and unknown .
Unfortunately if you want to use it to socialize with the unwashed masses all of these reasons will stop them from using it with you .
They LIKE all the stuff you hated about Facebook .
For them it 's benefits are : SimpleThey just type something and click the button and their friends can see stuff .
Sometimes they change the UI and everyone spends a day or two talking about how the old way was better until they get used to it but it 's still pretty easy .
To find your friends you tell it where you grew up , where you worked or what your email is .
You pick them by their names or pictures .
Simple. The lack of lots of control and options are part of this .
As more and more people are starting to notice or hear about how Facebook can expose your data they are having to add more controls but simplicity will always be more appealing to most people.PopularEveryone is on Facebook ! ! !
( they love exclamation points too -- I know... ) .
People you have n't seen in years are on there and sometimes someone you knew from a long time ago will find you .
Is n't that great !
Popularity and trendiness are a great feature of Facebook and other products for a lot of people .
They love joining groups and knowing that lots of people love the same things they do .
All of these things were popular pre-social networks and Facebook has done an adequate job of bringing them to the masses.FunPictures and games ! ! !
You get to see pictures of other people doing silly things .
You get to see pictures of your sister 's kid building a snowman and strange places where old friends go on vacation .
And they have games too !
Not complicated games or games that take a long time but simple things that you can play with your friends if you have a minute or two .
Casual gaming 's appeal is that you can learn the rules quickly , play during breaks at work or home , and play with people you know ( Farmville and the like ) .You have different values and interests than the average person on the street but you probably know this already .
I hope this gives you a little insight into some of the reasons why Facebook is appealing to a lot of people out there.My problem with this product is that I think its audience will naturally be limited and that will decrease its value as a social networking appliance for a lot of people .
If it only appeals to a small and technical audience why bother with hardware at all ?
Just make a software version of it and call it a server .
The people who will use it will know that means put it on a machine you leave on and connected and they might already have one around.Depending on your skill set you might even be able to put something like this together out of existing tools .
If you have a couple of friends who share your interests and are into technology a solution like this could work for you .
You 'd give up randomly bumping into that kid you knew when you were 9 but you may not see this as a valuable feature anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're totally right, Facebook was completely wrong for you.
A device like this sounds like it would really work for you.
It's very focused on preserving privacy and giving lots of control over information, highly technical and sophisticated, allows you to write as much as you want, and is completely new and unknown.
Unfortunately if you want to use it to socialize with the unwashed masses all of these reasons will stop them from using it with you.
They LIKE all the stuff you hated about Facebook.
For them it's benefits are:SimpleThey just type something and click the button and their friends can see stuff.
Sometimes they change the UI and everyone spends a day or two talking about how the old way was better until they get used to it but it's still pretty easy.
To find your friends you tell it where you grew up, where you worked or what your email is.
You pick them by their names or pictures.
Simple. The lack of lots of control and options are part of this.
As more and more people are starting to notice or hear about how Facebook can expose your data they are having to add more controls but simplicity will always be more appealing to most people.PopularEveryone is on Facebook!!!
(they love exclamation points too -- I know...).
People you haven't seen in years are on there and sometimes someone you knew from a long time ago will find you.
Isn't that great!
Popularity and trendiness are a great feature of Facebook and other products for a lot of people.
They love joining groups and knowing that lots of people love the same things they do.
All of these things were popular pre-social networks and Facebook has done an adequate job of bringing them to the masses.FunPictures and games!!!
You get to see pictures of other people doing silly things.
You get to see pictures of your sister's kid building a snowman and strange places where old friends go on vacation.
And they have games too!
Not complicated games or games that take a long time but simple things that you can play with your friends if you have a minute or two.
Casual gaming's appeal is that you can learn the rules quickly, play during breaks at work or home, and play with people you know (Farmville and the like).You have different values and interests than the average person on the street but you probably know this already.
I hope this gives you a little insight into some of the reasons why Facebook is appealing to a lot of people out there.My problem with this product is that I think its audience will naturally be limited and that will decrease its value as a social networking appliance for a lot of people.
If it only appeals to a small and technical audience why bother with hardware at all?
Just make a software version of it and call it a server.
The people who will use it will know that means put it on a machine you leave on and connected and they might already have one around.Depending on your skill set you might even be able to put something like this together out of existing tools.
If you have a couple of friends who share your interests and are into technology a solution like this could work for you.
You'd give up randomly bumping into that kid you knew when you were 9 but you may not see this as a valuable feature anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544256</id>
	<title>Re:It's essential - is FOSS movement dying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement</p></div><p>obvious response: FOSS developers are ugly losers who would rather troll 1980s-style IRC channels with the other untouchables</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movementobvious response : FOSS developers are ugly losers who would rather troll 1980s-style IRC channels with the other untouchables</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movementobvious response: FOSS developers are ugly losers who would rather troll 1980s-style IRC channels with the other untouchables
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546632</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1269011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and I'd consider paying up to $500 for such a device.</p></div><p>
Are you kidding me?? You must be the live of the party in focus groups.</p><p>"That, I'd pay $1,000. And that, I'd pay $500, no problem. As you can see, I take my social networking super seriously. "   </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I 'd consider paying up to $ 500 for such a device .
Are you kidding me ? ?
You must be the live of the party in focus groups .
" That , I 'd pay $ 1,000 .
And that , I 'd pay $ 500 , no problem .
As you can see , I take my social networking super seriously .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and I'd consider paying up to $500 for such a device.
Are you kidding me??
You must be the live of the party in focus groups.
"That, I'd pay $1,000.
And that, I'd pay $500, no problem.
As you can see, I take my social networking super seriously.
"   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543648</id>
	<title>It's essential - is FOSS movement dying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement. The benefits of FOSS, open systems, and putting control in the end users' hands apply just as well to social networking as they do to any other application. It enables innovation (good luck building your own apps based on Facebook), it protects privacy (I know, it's trendy to disregard it so it must not be consequential - like housing prices and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com stocks), enables inter-operability between applications, and also long-term data integrity (good luck migrating your Facebook data to another platform).</p><p>Where are the FOSS social networking competitors? The peer-to-peer application that gives users control over their own, most personal data. The open source code and open systems that allow innovation and easy integration with new apps? The open data formats and protocols? The end-user control that allows users to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with their data and systems?</p><p>Is there still a movement? Has there been a major new project since Firefox? I wonder if the mass popularization of the web resulted in a class of users that don't understand these issues. If so, the FOSS movement has failed, so far, in its most important task, which is educating this new generation of users. There are not enough FOSS advocates to do it themselves; it needs to be a priority in the public's mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement .
The benefits of FOSS , open systems , and putting control in the end users ' hands apply just as well to social networking as they do to any other application .
It enables innovation ( good luck building your own apps based on Facebook ) , it protects privacy ( I know , it 's trendy to disregard it so it must not be consequential - like housing prices and .com stocks ) , enables inter-operability between applications , and also long-term data integrity ( good luck migrating your Facebook data to another platform ) .Where are the FOSS social networking competitors ?
The peer-to-peer application that gives users control over their own , most personal data .
The open source code and open systems that allow innovation and easy integration with new apps ?
The open data formats and protocols ?
The end-user control that allows users to do whatever they want , whenever they want , with their data and systems ? Is there still a movement ?
Has there been a major new project since Firefox ?
I wonder if the mass popularization of the web resulted in a class of users that do n't understand these issues .
If so , the FOSS movement has failed , so far , in its most important task , which is educating this new generation of users .
There are not enough FOSS advocates to do it themselves ; it needs to be a priority in the public 's mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wondering for some time why social networking is not already a priority for the free software movement.
The benefits of FOSS, open systems, and putting control in the end users' hands apply just as well to social networking as they do to any other application.
It enables innovation (good luck building your own apps based on Facebook), it protects privacy (I know, it's trendy to disregard it so it must not be consequential - like housing prices and .com stocks), enables inter-operability between applications, and also long-term data integrity (good luck migrating your Facebook data to another platform).Where are the FOSS social networking competitors?
The peer-to-peer application that gives users control over their own, most personal data.
The open source code and open systems that allow innovation and easy integration with new apps?
The open data formats and protocols?
The end-user control that allows users to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with their data and systems?Is there still a movement?
Has there been a major new project since Firefox?
I wonder if the mass popularization of the web resulted in a class of users that don't understand these issues.
If so, the FOSS movement has failed, so far, in its most important task, which is educating this new generation of users.
There are not enough FOSS advocates to do it themselves; it needs to be a priority in the public's mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543220</id>
	<title>Too late?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1268990880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?</p></div><p>Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom ? Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it simply too late to get people to give up their Facebook accounts for something that gives them more freedom?Yes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544610</id>
	<title>Well, I for one, care...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lot of reasons for me to come here as AC -- none of them is questionable (well, perhaps the jokes...).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has a policy of effectively burying ACs.</p><p>Sometimes this even allows for abusive moderation, because other moderators don't read ACs.</p><p>And registered dudes post  BS, and if ever they get kicked from here, it seems \_they\_ don't care. If.</p><p>(but I don't know if this web software -- Slash? -- is still free)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot of reasons for me to come here as AC -- none of them is questionable ( well , perhaps the jokes... ) .
/. has a policy of effectively burying ACs.Sometimes this even allows for abusive moderation , because other moderators do n't read ACs.And registered dudes post BS , and if ever they get kicked from here , it seems \ _they \ _ do n't care .
If. ( but I do n't know if this web software -- Slash ?
-- is still free )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot of reasons for me to come here as AC -- none of them is questionable (well, perhaps the jokes...).
/. has a policy of effectively burying ACs.Sometimes this even allows for abusive moderation, because other moderators don't read ACs.And registered dudes post  BS, and if ever they get kicked from here, it seems \_they\_ don't care.
If.(but I don't know if this web software -- Slash?
-- is still free)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543322</id>
	<title>Not sure I understand</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1268991180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is this "your data" that he wants to fetch? I don't think most people are aware of having any "data" on social networks. Their favorite bands, their favorite movies... that's not "data," it's information about themselves that they post to social networks because they want other people to know it.</p><p>The problem with commercial social networks is <i>their</i> interpretation of what "your data" is. The stuff they're interested in has less to do with whether you say you like Blink 182 and more to do with who all your friends are, how often you communicate with them, what keywords show up most often in your posts, what groups you join and who else is in them, and all that other stuff that can be data-mined. In other words, it's the record of your social interactions that's the "data" -- so why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is this " your data " that he wants to fetch ?
I do n't think most people are aware of having any " data " on social networks .
Their favorite bands , their favorite movies... that 's not " data , " it 's information about themselves that they post to social networks because they want other people to know it.The problem with commercial social networks is their interpretation of what " your data " is .
The stuff they 're interested in has less to do with whether you say you like Blink 182 and more to do with who all your friends are , how often you communicate with them , what keywords show up most often in your posts , what groups you join and who else is in them , and all that other stuff that can be data-mined .
In other words , it 's the record of your social interactions that 's the " data " -- so why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is this "your data" that he wants to fetch?
I don't think most people are aware of having any "data" on social networks.
Their favorite bands, their favorite movies... that's not "data," it's information about themselves that they post to social networks because they want other people to know it.The problem with commercial social networks is their interpretation of what "your data" is.
The stuff they're interested in has less to do with whether you say you like Blink 182 and more to do with who all your friends are, how often you communicate with them, what keywords show up most often in your posts, what groups you join and who else is in them, and all that other stuff that can be data-mined.
In other words, it's the record of your social interactions that's the "data" -- so why would you want to preserve that in a brand-new network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547882</id>
	<title>Free as in Freedom</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1269115740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is free (as in freedom, not as beer) software means that no conditions attached on its use (depending the exact license there are some conditions, but usually regarding redistribution or things like that). That means that if you want to use it for good or evil (under some subjective point of view and moral values) , you are not prevented by its license to do it. A tool don't need to have ethic, just need to be used and the one that should worry about ethic is the one using it.<br><br>Even creating a new kind of free software license with "ethics" attached fall into the subjectivity of whatever wrong could be doing facebook, google, or even microsoft, both by point of view, social perception of that time (in 15 years we will see privacy as we see it now? Apache have 15 years already, Linux is close to 20, and isolated events like i.e. 9/11 can change world perception on certain topics as good or evil)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is free ( as in freedom , not as beer ) software means that no conditions attached on its use ( depending the exact license there are some conditions , but usually regarding redistribution or things like that ) .
That means that if you want to use it for good or evil ( under some subjective point of view and moral values ) , you are not prevented by its license to do it .
A tool do n't need to have ethic , just need to be used and the one that should worry about ethic is the one using it.Even creating a new kind of free software license with " ethics " attached fall into the subjectivity of whatever wrong could be doing facebook , google , or even microsoft , both by point of view , social perception of that time ( in 15 years we will see privacy as we see it now ?
Apache have 15 years already , Linux is close to 20 , and isolated events like i.e .
9/11 can change world perception on certain topics as good or evil )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is free (as in freedom, not as beer) software means that no conditions attached on its use (depending the exact license there are some conditions, but usually regarding redistribution or things like that).
That means that if you want to use it for good or evil (under some subjective point of view and moral values) , you are not prevented by its license to do it.
A tool don't need to have ethic, just need to be used and the one that should worry about ethic is the one using it.Even creating a new kind of free software license with "ethics" attached fall into the subjectivity of whatever wrong could be doing facebook, google, or even microsoft, both by point of view, social perception of that time (in 15 years we will see privacy as we see it now?
Apache have 15 years already, Linux is close to 20, and isolated events like i.e.
9/11 can change world perception on certain topics as good or evil)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546494</id>
	<title>that would make the best bot net around!</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wall-warts can be hacked too</htmltext>
<tokenext>wall-warts can be hacked too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wall-warts can be hacked too</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244</id>
	<title>Sheeple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a fabulous idea. Sign me up. However in terms of penetration, it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures. Social networking is here to stay and is possibly the most effective tool for destroying freedom. Why should the NSA go after people when they can simply get the people to come to them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a fabulous idea .
Sign me up .
However in terms of penetration , it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures .
Social networking is here to stay and is possibly the most effective tool for destroying freedom .
Why should the NSA go after people when they can simply get the people to come to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a fabulous idea.
Sign me up.
However in terms of penetration, it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures.
Social networking is here to stay and is possibly the most effective tool for destroying freedom.
Why should the NSA go after people when they can simply get the people to come to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546120</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269005760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shhh don't let RMS hear you. He might cry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhh do n't let RMS hear you .
He might cry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhh don't let RMS hear you.
He might cry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548522</id>
	<title>Re:Sheeple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"However in terms of penetration, it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures. "</p><p>Rare? We are Legion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" However in terms of penetration , it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures .
" Rare ? We are Legion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"However in terms of penetration, it will be the rare paranoid slashdot reader that values privacy enough to take such measures.
"Rare? We are Legion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543268</id>
	<title>Doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is free software is used to voluntarily erode privacy rights.</p><p>Not anymore! Now we have a server that looks like a night-light, just plug it in and it will do all your social networking for you! It's magic! No longer will you have to give up your privacy rights!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Do I have the argument right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is free software is used to voluntarily erode privacy rights.Not anymore !
Now we have a server that looks like a night-light , just plug it in and it will do all your social networking for you !
It 's magic !
No longer will you have to give up your privacy rights !
...Do I have the argument right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is free software is used to voluntarily erode privacy rights.Not anymore!
Now we have a server that looks like a night-light, just plug it in and it will do all your social networking for you!
It's magic!
No longer will you have to give up your privacy rights!
...Do I have the argument right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</id>
	<title>Too little too late</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1268990760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic. You aren't going to get it's 500 million or so users to migrate to a self configurable system simply in the name of privacy. What percentage of the users on facebook actually care? On quarter of one percent? Even that would be a stretch. People aren't going to leave their hard earned farmville accounts because facebook is using their personal data to market to them.  It's not a concern in this day and age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that facebook is now the # 1 site when it comes to traffic .
You are n't going to get it 's 500 million or so users to migrate to a self configurable system simply in the name of privacy .
What percentage of the users on facebook actually care ?
On quarter of one percent ?
Even that would be a stretch .
People are n't going to leave their hard earned farmville accounts because facebook is using their personal data to market to them .
It 's not a concern in this day and age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.
You aren't going to get it's 500 million or so users to migrate to a self configurable system simply in the name of privacy.
What percentage of the users on facebook actually care?
On quarter of one percent?
Even that would be a stretch.
People aren't going to leave their hard earned farmville accounts because facebook is using their personal data to market to them.
It's not a concern in this day and age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547376</id>
	<title>Not briliant idea for non-free countries!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a suggestion and it's clear will be discussed, but the problem is out side of USA, in countries like Iran, let me explain, now I can connect to internet and thanks to Tor network let me use Facebook or other social networks because all kind of social networking are banned and Filtered by government but with a little effort we can use this sites. But what will be happen if we need a Hardware to access this sites? oops,  we can't buy that piece of hardware because government will forbid importing that hardware, so this means no more social networking for us.  Yes I like the idea of having secure untraceable or distributed way to access Social Network because at least in countries like here keeping social networking secure and private is much important than any other place but being depend to hardware **at first look** is not brilliant solution.   it will be like Satellite receiver, in Iran if you have a Satellite receiver you'll pay fine or even go jail, I can't think about another hardware to bring my people to jail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a suggestion and it 's clear will be discussed , but the problem is out side of USA , in countries like Iran , let me explain , now I can connect to internet and thanks to Tor network let me use Facebook or other social networks because all kind of social networking are banned and Filtered by government but with a little effort we can use this sites .
But what will be happen if we need a Hardware to access this sites ?
oops , we ca n't buy that piece of hardware because government will forbid importing that hardware , so this means no more social networking for us .
Yes I like the idea of having secure untraceable or distributed way to access Social Network because at least in countries like here keeping social networking secure and private is much important than any other place but being depend to hardware * * at first look * * is not brilliant solution .
it will be like Satellite receiver , in Iran if you have a Satellite receiver you 'll pay fine or even go jail , I ca n't think about another hardware to bring my people to jail ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a suggestion and it's clear will be discussed, but the problem is out side of USA, in countries like Iran, let me explain, now I can connect to internet and thanks to Tor network let me use Facebook or other social networks because all kind of social networking are banned and Filtered by government but with a little effort we can use this sites.
But what will be happen if we need a Hardware to access this sites?
oops,  we can't buy that piece of hardware because government will forbid importing that hardware, so this means no more social networking for us.
Yes I like the idea of having secure untraceable or distributed way to access Social Network because at least in countries like here keeping social networking secure and private is much important than any other place but being depend to hardware **at first look** is not brilliant solution.
it will be like Satellite receiver, in Iran if you have a Satellite receiver you'll pay fine or even go jail, I can't think about another hardware to bring my people to jail ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546030</id>
	<title>Re:People use social networks because they WANT to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to support this device idea, but seriously?</p><blockquote><div><p>People who REALLY didn't want them would never have signed up in the first place.</p></div></blockquote><p>Just from my own experiences, there's:</p><ul> <li>People who have abandoned e-mail for social networks, and don't give out/have their personal (and only) phone number (why I have a Twitter account, hi boss!)</li><li>People who need to share media with other people who can't figure out anything but albums on "that Faces Book" (Facebook, hi mom!)</li><li>People who respond to every e-mail I send them with "why don't you just post on MySpace, I actually check that" (MySpace, hi sis!)</li><li>People who have ditched phone lines for VoIP/IM (Skype, hi London friend! AIM, hi sigoth!)</li><li>An employer who only uses Google Docs and Picasa as their workflow system (hi newspaper!)<p>There's lots of reasons to sign up for shitty services you'll never use - all of them involve other people who have moved on from old media. Unless you never interact with people outside of IT/CS, in which case I'm sorry to pull you away from your IRC channel and Usenet reader.</p></li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to support this device idea , but seriously ? People who REALLY did n't want them would never have signed up in the first place.Just from my own experiences , there 's : People who have abandoned e-mail for social networks , and do n't give out/have their personal ( and only ) phone number ( why I have a Twitter account , hi boss !
) People who need to share media with other people who ca n't figure out anything but albums on " that Faces Book " ( Facebook , hi mom !
) People who respond to every e-mail I send them with " why do n't you just post on MySpace , I actually check that " ( MySpace , hi sis !
) People who have ditched phone lines for VoIP/IM ( Skype , hi London friend !
AIM , hi sigoth !
) An employer who only uses Google Docs and Picasa as their workflow system ( hi newspaper !
) There 's lots of reasons to sign up for shitty services you 'll never use - all of them involve other people who have moved on from old media .
Unless you never interact with people outside of IT/CS , in which case I 'm sorry to pull you away from your IRC channel and Usenet reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to support this device idea, but seriously?People who REALLY didn't want them would never have signed up in the first place.Just from my own experiences, there's: People who have abandoned e-mail for social networks, and don't give out/have their personal (and only) phone number (why I have a Twitter account, hi boss!
)People who need to share media with other people who can't figure out anything but albums on "that Faces Book" (Facebook, hi mom!
)People who respond to every e-mail I send them with "why don't you just post on MySpace, I actually check that" (MySpace, hi sis!
)People who have ditched phone lines for VoIP/IM (Skype, hi London friend!
AIM, hi sigoth!
)An employer who only uses Google Docs and Picasa as their workflow system (hi newspaper!
)There's lots of reasons to sign up for shitty services you'll never use - all of them involve other people who have moved on from old media.
Unless you never interact with people outside of IT/CS, in which case I'm sorry to pull you away from your IRC channel and Usenet reader.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548546</id>
	<title>Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Tv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CHAPEL HILL, NC&ndash;Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers&ndash;as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.</p><p><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CHAPEL HILL , NC    Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television , a fact he repeatedly points out to friends , family , and coworkers    as well as to his mailman , neighborhood convenience-store clerks , and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.http : //www.theonion.com/content/node/28694 [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CHAPEL HILL, NC–Area resident Jonathan Green does not own a television, a fact he repeatedly points out to friends, family, and coworkers–as well as to his mailman, neighborhood convenience-store clerks, and the man who cleans the hallways in his apartment building.http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694 [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544898</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1268998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook is only top traffic dog because of all the scam bots constantly creating new accounts, scaming others, and stealing information via games.</p><p>Take all the scammers away, you could run it off a cable modem!</p><p>Of course, you're utterly wrong.  Facebook has more traffic than Google <strong>SEARCH</strong> but throw in all the other services and its knocked back down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is only top traffic dog because of all the scam bots constantly creating new accounts , scaming others , and stealing information via games.Take all the scammers away , you could run it off a cable modem ! Of course , you 're utterly wrong .
Facebook has more traffic than Google SEARCH but throw in all the other services and its knocked back down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is only top traffic dog because of all the scam bots constantly creating new accounts, scaming others, and stealing information via games.Take all the scammers away, you could run it off a cable modem!Of course, you're utterly wrong.
Facebook has more traffic than Google SEARCH but throw in all the other services and its knocked back down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544744</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom?</i> </p><p>VERY GOOD AND INSIGHTFUL QUESTION!  Here is the answer from your post:</p><p> <i>There are things I don't want the whole world to know about, and they're not on FB. I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales, but I don't have to put stuff on it.</i> </p><p>Do you have more questions you already know the answer to?  I can help you with those!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom ?
VERY GOOD AND INSIGHTFUL QUESTION !
Here is the answer from your post : There are things I do n't want the whole world to know about , and they 're not on FB .
I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales , but I do n't have to put stuff on it .
Do you have more questions you already know the answer to ?
I can help you with those !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does every piece of software on the planet need to promote freedom?
VERY GOOD AND INSIGHTFUL QUESTION!
Here is the answer from your post: There are things I don't want the whole world to know about, and they're not on FB.
I trust FB to respect my privacy in much the same sense that I trust mousetraps to catch and restrain blue whales, but I don't have to put stuff on it.
Do you have more questions you already know the answer to?
I can help you with those!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544470</id>
	<title>kdawson.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268996040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>kdawson, you suck.  seriously. stop putting this trash on the front page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson , you suck .
seriously. stop putting this trash on the front page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson, you suck.
seriously. stop putting this trash on the front page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545546</id>
	<title>Re:He is talking about a home page isn't he?</title>
	<author>kwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1269001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't it do some kind of integration with existing services, like Facebook and possibly Google? The device/service exposes as much information about you as you allow it to to Google or synchronizes that with Facebook/Myspace/Twitter/SocialNetworkDuJour and then people use that existing service to find you. We would still have the integration problems (Most of my family is non-technical and they love Facebook because it's so brain-dead simple) but it would certainly fix the "how to find me" problem you mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't it do some kind of integration with existing services , like Facebook and possibly Google ?
The device/service exposes as much information about you as you allow it to to Google or synchronizes that with Facebook/Myspace/Twitter/SocialNetworkDuJour and then people use that existing service to find you .
We would still have the integration problems ( Most of my family is non-technical and they love Facebook because it 's so brain-dead simple ) but it would certainly fix the " how to find me " problem you mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't it do some kind of integration with existing services, like Facebook and possibly Google?
The device/service exposes as much information about you as you allow it to to Google or synchronizes that with Facebook/Myspace/Twitter/SocialNetworkDuJour and then people use that existing service to find you.
We would still have the integration problems (Most of my family is non-technical and they love Facebook because it's so brain-dead simple) but it would certainly fix the "how to find me" problem you mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544142</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh...</title>
	<author>Pebby</author>
	<datestamp>1268994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This costs money, Facebook costs privacy.</p><p>I'd rather pay money to have control of my own data. I can accrue more money, but once Facebook knows something, I can never get that privacy back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This costs money , Facebook costs privacy.I 'd rather pay money to have control of my own data .
I can accrue more money , but once Facebook knows something , I can never get that privacy back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This costs money, Facebook costs privacy.I'd rather pay money to have control of my own data.
I can accrue more money, but once Facebook knows something, I can never get that privacy back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31551240</id>
	<title>Most people are missing the point here.</title>
	<author>schlick</author>
	<datestamp>1269115800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch the video.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>I think his main point is not about sharing information about with your friends about what you're doing on Friday night, it is about the meta-information you leave behind when using a centralized server/client model like almost everything is now on the Internet.</p><p>In the lecture he talks about how infrastructures like facebook can be used to spy on people, and he's not talking about the information that you publish, he's talking about the information that can be inferred from the analysis of your activities.  (i.e facebook employees can guess with a fair degree of accuracy who has a crush on whom because they can see how many times so-and-so looked at so-and-so's page)</p><p>His problem is not that people want to have online profiles and share information with each other, his problem is that the client server model that has evolved on the Internet is inherently susceptible to misuse and the erosion of human freedom.  He wants to move the Internet back to what it originally was intended to be which is a network of equal peers.</p><p>The way it works now, with big servers in the middle and all us tiny dis-empowered clients on the edge is a model that is inherently susceptible to abuse and is indeed being misused to humankind's disenfranchisement.</p><p>One step he suggests toward restoring some of our privacy is for the open/free software community to build a free software stack that will run on very small cheap hardware i.e. shevaplug that individuals will use to host their own profile in their own home.  "You keep the logs" if a law enforcement agency wants to spy one you they have to get a subpoena to search your actual house (where the server actually is).  With this decentralized model he suggests that it will be harder to aggregate all the data about individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch the video.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = QOEMv0S8AcA [ youtube.com ] I think his main point is not about sharing information about with your friends about what you 're doing on Friday night , it is about the meta-information you leave behind when using a centralized server/client model like almost everything is now on the Internet.In the lecture he talks about how infrastructures like facebook can be used to spy on people , and he 's not talking about the information that you publish , he 's talking about the information that can be inferred from the analysis of your activities .
( i.e facebook employees can guess with a fair degree of accuracy who has a crush on whom because they can see how many times so-and-so looked at so-and-so 's page ) His problem is not that people want to have online profiles and share information with each other , his problem is that the client server model that has evolved on the Internet is inherently susceptible to misuse and the erosion of human freedom .
He wants to move the Internet back to what it originally was intended to be which is a network of equal peers.The way it works now , with big servers in the middle and all us tiny dis-empowered clients on the edge is a model that is inherently susceptible to abuse and is indeed being misused to humankind 's disenfranchisement.One step he suggests toward restoring some of our privacy is for the open/free software community to build a free software stack that will run on very small cheap hardware i.e .
shevaplug that individuals will use to host their own profile in their own home .
" You keep the logs " if a law enforcement agency wants to spy one you they have to get a subpoena to search your actual house ( where the server actually is ) .
With this decentralized model he suggests that it will be harder to aggregate all the data about individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch the video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA [youtube.com]I think his main point is not about sharing information about with your friends about what you're doing on Friday night, it is about the meta-information you leave behind when using a centralized server/client model like almost everything is now on the Internet.In the lecture he talks about how infrastructures like facebook can be used to spy on people, and he's not talking about the information that you publish, he's talking about the information that can be inferred from the analysis of your activities.
(i.e facebook employees can guess with a fair degree of accuracy who has a crush on whom because they can see how many times so-and-so looked at so-and-so's page)His problem is not that people want to have online profiles and share information with each other, his problem is that the client server model that has evolved on the Internet is inherently susceptible to misuse and the erosion of human freedom.
He wants to move the Internet back to what it originally was intended to be which is a network of equal peers.The way it works now, with big servers in the middle and all us tiny dis-empowered clients on the edge is a model that is inherently susceptible to abuse and is indeed being misused to humankind's disenfranchisement.One step he suggests toward restoring some of our privacy is for the open/free software community to build a free software stack that will run on very small cheap hardware i.e.
shevaplug that individuals will use to host their own profile in their own home.
"You keep the logs" if a law enforcement agency wants to spy one you they have to get a subpoena to search your actual house (where the server actually is).
With this decentralized model he suggests that it will be harder to aggregate all the data about individuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544768</id>
	<title>it's not about freedom</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1268997480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's about control. read the terms and conditions: whatever you post, you know longer own. Can't complain if it's lost, hijacked, un deletable, accessible by anyone even though you tried to restrict it to "friends", still there in 20 yrs, defaced, misused, resold, repurposed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's about control .
read the terms and conditions : whatever you post , you know longer own .
Ca n't complain if it 's lost , hijacked , un deletable , accessible by anyone even though you tried to restrict it to " friends " , still there in 20 yrs , defaced , misused , resold , repurposed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's about control.
read the terms and conditions: whatever you post, you know longer own.
Can't complain if it's lost, hijacked, un deletable, accessible by anyone even though you tried to restrict it to "friends", still there in 20 yrs, defaced, misused, resold, repurposed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543448</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's  not. re-read the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post about that. Facebook traffic (all of it) is &gt; googles SEARCH traffic. Total google traffic is ~\%4 more than the stat they cherry picked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not .
re-read the / .
post about that .
Facebook traffic ( all of it ) is &gt; googles SEARCH traffic .
Total google traffic is ~ \ % 4 more than the stat they cherry picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's  not.
re-read the /.
post about that.
Facebook traffic (all of it) is &gt; googles SEARCH traffic.
Total google traffic is ~\%4 more than the stat they cherry picked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549392</id>
	<title>Re:"freedom"</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1269099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, some people make poor choices about publishing personal information (sexting, anyone?).</p></div><p>Oooh go on then - what's your number?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , some people make poor choices about publishing personal information ( sexting , anyone ?
) .Oooh go on then - what 's your number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, some people make poor choices about publishing personal information (sexting, anyone?
).Oooh go on then - what's your number?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544290</id>
	<title>If people really cared...</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1268995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the vast majority of people with FaceBook/MySpace/Whatever accounts really gave a fuck about their privacy and freedom, they wouldn't have opened accounts in the first place.</p><p>More than a few people I know are "conscientious objectors" and don't have accounts on social network sites. Everyone else knows fully well what they are sharing and don't really care (myself included)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the vast majority of people with FaceBook/MySpace/Whatever accounts really gave a fuck about their privacy and freedom , they would n't have opened accounts in the first place.More than a few people I know are " conscientious objectors " and do n't have accounts on social network sites .
Everyone else knows fully well what they are sharing and do n't really care ( myself included )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the vast majority of people with FaceBook/MySpace/Whatever accounts really gave a fuck about their privacy and freedom, they wouldn't have opened accounts in the first place.More than a few people I know are "conscientious objectors" and don't have accounts on social network sites.
Everyone else knows fully well what they are sharing and don't really care (myself included)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543706</id>
	<title>Why hardware?</title>
	<author>Aggrav8d</author>
	<datestamp>1268992740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sell an OS with a webserver already setup + a blog for every user.<br>
Set the browser homepage to an aggregator of their favorite blogs.<br>
Update the software for them through OS patches.<br>
DON'T give them any options to customize the hell out of it.<br>
<br>
I am aware of the many security reasons this is a bad idea.  My point is that hardware is not needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell an OS with a webserver already setup + a blog for every user .
Set the browser homepage to an aggregator of their favorite blogs .
Update the software for them through OS patches .
DO N'T give them any options to customize the hell out of it .
I am aware of the many security reasons this is a bad idea .
My point is that hardware is not needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell an OS with a webserver already setup + a blog for every user.
Set the browser homepage to an aggregator of their favorite blogs.
Update the software for them through OS patches.
DON'T give them any options to customize the hell out of it.
I am aware of the many security reasons this is a bad idea.
My point is that hardware is not needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548566</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hardware itself is a pretty nice idea as a complement to online services. I bet your girlfriend, or grandma or whatever would like the idea of having their stuff stored in a piece of hardware that they can easily grab and take with them wherever they go.</p><p>It allows you to share more than a few gigabytes of photos and film. If you shoot HD film (which most people will soon be doing anyway) it will quickly add up to terabytes.</p><p>Facebook (or social network X, Y or Z) can create a web app that helps her friends to find the files that she has stored at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware itself is a pretty nice idea as a complement to online services .
I bet your girlfriend , or grandma or whatever would like the idea of having their stuff stored in a piece of hardware that they can easily grab and take with them wherever they go.It allows you to share more than a few gigabytes of photos and film .
If you shoot HD film ( which most people will soon be doing anyway ) it will quickly add up to terabytes.Facebook ( or social network X , Y or Z ) can create a web app that helps her friends to find the files that she has stored at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware itself is a pretty nice idea as a complement to online services.
I bet your girlfriend, or grandma or whatever would like the idea of having their stuff stored in a piece of hardware that they can easily grab and take with them wherever they go.It allows you to share more than a few gigabytes of photos and film.
If you shoot HD film (which most people will soon be doing anyway) it will quickly add up to terabytes.Facebook (or social network X, Y or Z) can create a web app that helps her friends to find the files that she has stored at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543880</id>
	<title>"WikiSocial"</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1268993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Disclaimer: as soon as the word occurred to me I googled "wikisocial" and yep, it's in use. I'm not referring to any of them.)<br> <br>
A not-for-profit social network built with a "trustworthiness is our middle name" mindset would be appealing. Run by the sort of people who force you to keep a local backup of your data by default. Who take privacy seriously. Who encrypt all the data wherever possible. Who don't sell your profile info to advertisers and marketers. Who'd sooner throw all the hard drives and backup tapes into industrial shredders that turn them over to The Man. Who have a "do what ya like" attitude regarding content (within the expected no-kiddie-pron etc. limits.) <br> <br>
All it would take it volunteers and time. And a few million dollars for servers and bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Disclaimer : as soon as the word occurred to me I googled " wikisocial " and yep , it 's in use .
I 'm not referring to any of them .
) A not-for-profit social network built with a " trustworthiness is our middle name " mindset would be appealing .
Run by the sort of people who force you to keep a local backup of your data by default .
Who take privacy seriously .
Who encrypt all the data wherever possible .
Who do n't sell your profile info to advertisers and marketers .
Who 'd sooner throw all the hard drives and backup tapes into industrial shredders that turn them over to The Man .
Who have a " do what ya like " attitude regarding content ( within the expected no-kiddie-pron etc .
limits. ) All it would take it volunteers and time .
And a few million dollars for servers and bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Disclaimer: as soon as the word occurred to me I googled "wikisocial" and yep, it's in use.
I'm not referring to any of them.
) 
A not-for-profit social network built with a "trustworthiness is our middle name" mindset would be appealing.
Run by the sort of people who force you to keep a local backup of your data by default.
Who take privacy seriously.
Who encrypt all the data wherever possible.
Who don't sell your profile info to advertisers and marketers.
Who'd sooner throw all the hard drives and backup tapes into industrial shredders that turn them over to The Man.
Who have a "do what ya like" attitude regarding content (within the expected no-kiddie-pron etc.
limits.)  
All it would take it volunteers and time.
And a few million dollars for servers and bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544176</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh...</title>
	<author>JSlope</author>
	<datestamp>1268994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about a p2p software, which will be free and run on your computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a p2p software , which will be free and run on your computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a p2p software, which will be free and run on your computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543558</id>
	<title>Two things popped into my head</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1268992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Free Software To Save Us From Social Networks</p></div><p>

Who said we WANT to be saved?!?

</p><p> 2) </p><p><div class="quote"><p>and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts. It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.</p></div><p>

So basically you want facebook, but torrented?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Free Software To Save Us From Social Networks Who said we WANT to be saved ? ! ?
2 ) and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications , closing all your accounts .
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends ' plugs , so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them , by having their friends holding the secure version of their data .
So basically you want facebook , but torrented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Free Software To Save Us From Social Networks

Who said we WANT to be saved?!?
2) and it goes and fetches all your social networking data from all the social networking applications, closing all your accounts.
It backs itself up in an encrypted way to your friends' plugs, so that everybody is secure in the way that would be best for them, by having their friends holding the secure version of their data.
So basically you want facebook, but torrented?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545062</id>
	<title>Re:The Free social network already exists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like people not using SGML and waiting for XML...</p><p>I am not from the US, but anyone from the outside can see that most things are made by US-middle-class-targeting firms for US middle class consumers.  And out of all the people in the world, they do not care about what is ought to be but what makes them happy at that time.  Facebook/Google/Talking about "Cloud computing"/Wikipedia/Computer games and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like people not using SGML and waiting for XML...I am not from the US , but anyone from the outside can see that most things are made by US-middle-class-targeting firms for US middle class consumers .
And out of all the people in the world , they do not care about what is ought to be but what makes them happy at that time .
Facebook/Google/Talking about " Cloud computing " /Wikipedia/Computer games and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like people not using SGML and waiting for XML...I am not from the US, but anyone from the outside can see that most things are made by US-middle-class-targeting firms for US middle class consumers.
And out of all the people in the world, they do not care about what is ought to be but what makes them happy at that time.
Facebook/Google/Talking about "Cloud computing"/Wikipedia/Computer games and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544946</id>
	<title>Re:The Free social network already exists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why Apple is so successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why Apple is so successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why Apple is so successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31589708</id>
	<title>people do care</title>
	<author>bblfish</author>
	<datestamp>1269340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A study on Facebook done recently shows that people care a lot more than one thinks about privacy</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://preibusch.de/publications/Bonneau\_Preibusch\_\_Privacy\_Jungle\_\_2009-05-26.pdf" title="preibusch.de" rel="nofollow">http://preibusch.de/publications/Bonneau\_Preibusch\_\_Privacy\_Jungle\_\_2009-05-26.pdf</a> [preibusch.de]</p><p>Perhaps the fact that it is difficult, that there is no simple solution, is what stops them from being<br>able to fulfill that desire. Perhaps there is a lot of marketing to spread the idea that they don't. I wonder in whose<br>interest that would be?</p><p>Now another thought. The problem with current social networks is that they are too small. On any centralised network the network operator is always listening. So the number of possible groups that could be made on a site with N users is the size of the Powerset of N. Which is a huge number. Just as a matter of interest here are some figures:</p><p>P(100) = 2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376</p><p>P(250) = 2^250 = 18092513943330655534932966407607485602073435104006338131165247501236\<br>42650624</p><p>P(1000) = 2^1000 = 10715086071862673209484250490600018105614048117055336074437503883703\<br>51051124936122493198378815695858127594672917553146825187145285692314\<br>04359845775746985748039345677748242309854210746050623711418779541821\<br>53046474983581941267398767559165543946077062914571196477686542167660\<br>429831652624386837205668069376</p><p>Now take a site with N users, remove the operator you have P(N)/2 number of groups that connot be made.</p><p>Next think of the possible groups that could be made if the whole of humanity could be linked together... The current social networks are just peanuts compared to what is possible....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A study on Facebook done recently shows that people care a lot more than one thinks about privacy       http : //preibusch.de/publications/Bonneau \ _Preibusch \ _ \ _Privacy \ _Jungle \ _ \ _2009-05-26.pdf [ preibusch.de ] Perhaps the fact that it is difficult , that there is no simple solution , is what stops them from beingable to fulfill that desire .
Perhaps there is a lot of marketing to spread the idea that they do n't .
I wonder in whoseinterest that would be ? Now another thought .
The problem with current social networks is that they are too small .
On any centralised network the network operator is always listening .
So the number of possible groups that could be made on a site with N users is the size of the Powerset of N. Which is a huge number .
Just as a matter of interest here are some figures : P ( 100 ) = 2 ^ 100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376P ( 250 ) = 2 ^ 250 = 18092513943330655534932966407607485602073435104006338131165247501236 \ 42650624P ( 1000 ) = 2 ^ 1000 = 10715086071862673209484250490600018105614048117055336074437503883703 \ 51051124936122493198378815695858127594672917553146825187145285692314 \ 04359845775746985748039345677748242309854210746050623711418779541821 \ 53046474983581941267398767559165543946077062914571196477686542167660 \ 429831652624386837205668069376Now take a site with N users , remove the operator you have P ( N ) /2 number of groups that connot be made.Next think of the possible groups that could be made if the whole of humanity could be linked together... The current social networks are just peanuts compared to what is possible... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A study on Facebook done recently shows that people care a lot more than one thinks about privacy
      http://preibusch.de/publications/Bonneau\_Preibusch\_\_Privacy\_Jungle\_\_2009-05-26.pdf [preibusch.de]Perhaps the fact that it is difficult, that there is no simple solution, is what stops them from beingable to fulfill that desire.
Perhaps there is a lot of marketing to spread the idea that they don't.
I wonder in whoseinterest that would be?Now another thought.
The problem with current social networks is that they are too small.
On any centralised network the network operator is always listening.
So the number of possible groups that could be made on a site with N users is the size of the Powerset of N. Which is a huge number.
Just as a matter of interest here are some figures:P(100) = 2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376P(250) = 2^250 = 18092513943330655534932966407607485602073435104006338131165247501236\42650624P(1000) = 2^1000 = 10715086071862673209484250490600018105614048117055336074437503883703\51051124936122493198378815695858127594672917553146825187145285692314\04359845775746985748039345677748242309854210746050623711418779541821\53046474983581941267398767559165543946077062914571196477686542167660\429831652624386837205668069376Now take a site with N users, remove the operator you have P(N)/2 number of groups that connot be made.Next think of the possible groups that could be made if the whole of humanity could be linked together... The current social networks are just peanuts compared to what is possible....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028</id>
	<title>I have no Facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268994120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I deleted my Facebook. Everyone asks me why, here's why:</p><ul> <li> <strong>Privacy</strong>: I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name. Someone could find out everywhere I have been based on the album, the photo and the dates.</li><li> <strong>Shallowness</strong> </li><li> <p> The quality of communication on Facebook is poor. The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done. You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate (Read: Why the hell am <i>I</i> on Slashdot then?) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy.  </p></li><li> <strong>Trendy</strong> </li><li> <p> The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people. One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply, it focused on contribution of blog postings, news, links, pictures and videos. It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile.</p></li><li> <strong>Cloud storage</strong> </li><li> <p> All your messages and photographs are stored remotely. Facebook also converts your photographs downward in quality and makes them easier to share with people so most people only ever see the low quality pictures. In other words, it's not a lossless backup medium. At least with email, my email may be hosted but I can still download my own copies.</p></li><li> <strong>Excessive Openness</strong> </li><li>: You could set your privacy settings very high <i>but</i> your friends will give you away. At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends, including you. This means people can deduce your whereabouts and who you know quite easily. Another thing is that if public search results are enabled by your friends, you can still be exposed through Google search there! If I were an employment agency, it would be trivial to make friends with one of your application or request happy friends (such as a distant young relative) who accept any request that comes their way. If your privacy settings are set to 'Friends of Friends', I see practically everything. Anyone in the same network has the 'right' to see everything about you.</li><li> <strong>Keyboard unfriendly</strong> </li><li> <p> I may be a Windows user but I love keyboard control, I write this in VIM and my mail client is ALPINE.</p></li><li> <strong>Slow</strong> </li><li> <p> On all the browsers I have used Facebook is slow. I underclock my laptop and it's annoying to have to return to normal speed just to use a website.</p></li><li> <strong>Developers</strong> </li><li> <p> Mark Zuckerburg is not very nice. I do not believe in software patents but apparently he stole ideas from his fellow classmates. You can understand if you had an idea and someone stole it, without giving you credit. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates" title="guardian.co.uk"> Zuckerberg sued by classmates</a> [guardian.co.uk]. When some of the Facebook PHP code was leaked (<a href="http://revealingerrors.com/show\_me\_the\_code" title="revealingerrors.com">Revealing Errors, Facebook source</a> [revealingerrors.com], it was rather disturbing what was written: 'put hotties there'. Also the news that the master password was once 'Chuck Norris' (<a href="http://www.mydigitallife.co.za/index.php?option=com\_myblog&amp;show=the-facebook-master-password-is-chuck-norris-and-other-facebook-secrets.html&amp;Itemid=29" title="mydigitallife.co.za">master password</a> [mydigitallife.co.za]) is rather disturbing. I do not think the developers are competetent. Especially something as privacy critical.</p></li><li> <strong>Abuse</strong> </li><li> <p> The potential for abuse in Facebook is huge. Law enforcements can request practically all data about you see this <a href="http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/facebook-spy.pdf" title="cryptome.org">Cryptome leaked document</a> [cryptome.org]. The amount of marketing information they can collect on you is more than anywhere else, they have your profiles, your fan pages, browsing habits and internet usage patterns.</p></li><li> <strong>Applications</strong> </li><li> <p> The applications are ins</p></li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I deleted my Facebook .
Everyone asks me why , here 's why : Privacy : I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name .
Someone could find out everywhere I have been based on the album , the photo and the dates .
Shallowness The quality of communication on Facebook is poor .
The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done .
You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate ( Read : Why the hell am I on Slashdot then ?
) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy .
Trendy The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people .
One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply , it focused on contribution of blog postings , news , links , pictures and videos .
It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile .
Cloud storage All your messages and photographs are stored remotely .
Facebook also converts your photographs downward in quality and makes them easier to share with people so most people only ever see the low quality pictures .
In other words , it 's not a lossless backup medium .
At least with email , my email may be hosted but I can still download my own copies .
Excessive Openness : You could set your privacy settings very high but your friends will give you away .
At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends , including you .
This means people can deduce your whereabouts and who you know quite easily .
Another thing is that if public search results are enabled by your friends , you can still be exposed through Google search there !
If I were an employment agency , it would be trivial to make friends with one of your application or request happy friends ( such as a distant young relative ) who accept any request that comes their way .
If your privacy settings are set to 'Friends of Friends ' , I see practically everything .
Anyone in the same network has the 'right ' to see everything about you .
Keyboard unfriendly I may be a Windows user but I love keyboard control , I write this in VIM and my mail client is ALPINE .
Slow On all the browsers I have used Facebook is slow .
I underclock my laptop and it 's annoying to have to return to normal speed just to use a website .
Developers Mark Zuckerburg is not very nice .
I do not believe in software patents but apparently he stole ideas from his fellow classmates .
You can understand if you had an idea and someone stole it , without giving you credit .
Zuckerberg sued by classmates [ guardian.co.uk ] .
When some of the Facebook PHP code was leaked ( Revealing Errors , Facebook source [ revealingerrors.com ] , it was rather disturbing what was written : 'put hotties there' .
Also the news that the master password was once 'Chuck Norris ' ( master password [ mydigitallife.co.za ] ) is rather disturbing .
I do not think the developers are competetent .
Especially something as privacy critical .
Abuse The potential for abuse in Facebook is huge .
Law enforcements can request practically all data about you see this Cryptome leaked document [ cryptome.org ] .
The amount of marketing information they can collect on you is more than anywhere else , they have your profiles , your fan pages , browsing habits and internet usage patterns .
Applications The applications are ins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deleted my Facebook.
Everyone asks me why, here's why:  Privacy: I do not like the fact my photographs are available and indexed by my own name.
Someone could find out everywhere I have been based on the album, the photo and the dates.
Shallowness   The quality of communication on Facebook is poor.
The most indepth conversation you can have is what someone is doing and what they have done.
You are not promoted to have an intellectual debate (Read: Why the hell am I on Slashdot then?
) I much prefer to use email although If my email clients were more like how you send messages to people on Facebook it would make me very happy.
Trendy   The people on Facebook for me are the wannabe trendy people.
One or two years ago I tried to get my friends to join Multiply, it focused on contribution of blog postings, news, links, pictures and videos.
It was difficult to get people to contribute things that were worthwhile.
Cloud storage   All your messages and photographs are stored remotely.
Facebook also converts your photographs downward in quality and makes them easier to share with people so most people only ever see the low quality pictures.
In other words, it's not a lossless backup medium.
At least with email, my email may be hosted but I can still download my own copies.
Excessive Openness : You could set your privacy settings very high but your friends will give you away.
At least one of your friends will have settings that expose their list of friends, including you.
This means people can deduce your whereabouts and who you know quite easily.
Another thing is that if public search results are enabled by your friends, you can still be exposed through Google search there!
If I were an employment agency, it would be trivial to make friends with one of your application or request happy friends (such as a distant young relative) who accept any request that comes their way.
If your privacy settings are set to 'Friends of Friends', I see practically everything.
Anyone in the same network has the 'right' to see everything about you.
Keyboard unfriendly   I may be a Windows user but I love keyboard control, I write this in VIM and my mail client is ALPINE.
Slow   On all the browsers I have used Facebook is slow.
I underclock my laptop and it's annoying to have to return to normal speed just to use a website.
Developers   Mark Zuckerburg is not very nice.
I do not believe in software patents but apparently he stole ideas from his fellow classmates.
You can understand if you had an idea and someone stole it, without giving you credit.
Zuckerberg sued by classmates [guardian.co.uk].
When some of the Facebook PHP code was leaked (Revealing Errors, Facebook source [revealingerrors.com], it was rather disturbing what was written: 'put hotties there'.
Also the news that the master password was once 'Chuck Norris' (master password [mydigitallife.co.za]) is rather disturbing.
I do not think the developers are competetent.
Especially something as privacy critical.
Abuse   The potential for abuse in Facebook is huge.
Law enforcements can request practically all data about you see this Cryptome leaked document [cryptome.org].
The amount of marketing information they can collect on you is more than anywhere else, they have your profiles, your fan pages, browsing habits and internet usage patterns.
Applications   The applications are ins</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543792</id>
	<title>Interesting solution, but. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1268993280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom from who?</p><p>Spam kings, civilian police departments and credit scam goons?  (Like banks.)  Perhaps.  But any group with real technology will be able to see through you from the top down no matter what consumer grade electronic solution you employ.</p><p>From that perspective, I don't think people really care about their freedoms.  Most of the time, I don't think people realize they are being measured, categorized and manipulated accordingly.  It's a fairly convincing illusion we have of freedom, in that the ones we lose we are convinced we didn't need anyway.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom from who ? Spam kings , civilian police departments and credit scam goons ?
( Like banks .
) Perhaps .
But any group with real technology will be able to see through you from the top down no matter what consumer grade electronic solution you employ.From that perspective , I do n't think people really care about their freedoms .
Most of the time , I do n't think people realize they are being measured , categorized and manipulated accordingly .
It 's a fairly convincing illusion we have of freedom , in that the ones we lose we are convinced we did n't need anyway.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom from who?Spam kings, civilian police departments and credit scam goons?
(Like banks.
)  Perhaps.
But any group with real technology will be able to see through you from the top down no matter what consumer grade electronic solution you employ.From that perspective, I don't think people really care about their freedoms.
Most of the time, I don't think people realize they are being measured, categorized and manipulated accordingly.
It's a fairly convincing illusion we have of freedom, in that the ones we lose we are convinced we didn't need anyway.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543630</id>
	<title>Re:Too little too late</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268992380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.</p></div></blockquote><p>Only when you ignore, IIRC, ~40\% of Google's traffic; Google is far ahead of Facebook, except when you exclude Google's "non-search properties".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that facebook is now the # 1 site when it comes to traffic.Only when you ignore , IIRC , ~ 40 \ % of Google 's traffic ; Google is far ahead of Facebook , except when you exclude Google 's " non-search properties " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that facebook is now the #1 site when it comes to traffic.Only when you ignore, IIRC, ~40\% of Google's traffic; Google is far ahead of Facebook, except when you exclude Google's "non-search properties".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544180</id>
	<title>Re:"freedom"</title>
	<author>Pebby</author>
	<datestamp>1268994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the problem here is that you have control. If you published your personal data on YOUR site, that's your choice - you can remove it, change it. It's your data.</p><p>As soon as you give it to FB, they can do whatever they want with it, including not deleting or changing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the problem here is that you have control .
If you published your personal data on YOUR site , that 's your choice - you can remove it , change it .
It 's your data.As soon as you give it to FB , they can do whatever they want with it , including not deleting or changing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the problem here is that you have control.
If you published your personal data on YOUR site, that's your choice - you can remove it, change it.
It's your data.As soon as you give it to FB, they can do whatever they want with it, including not deleting or changing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543730</id>
	<title>There are no stupid questions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but there sure is stupid ideas! Add this to the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but there sure is stupid ideas !
Add this to the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but there sure is stupid ideas!
Add this to the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547430</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This just doesn't make any sense. People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people.  [chomp]</p></div><p>Not so. There are other social nets besides Fazebook, some of which employ privacy. There are people who like to CHOOSE their online friends, and keep in touch with actual people who are some distance away.  These are people who will not use Fazebook for any reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just does n't make any sense .
People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people .
[ chomp ] Not so .
There are other social nets besides Fazebook , some of which employ privacy .
There are people who like to CHOOSE their online friends , and keep in touch with actual people who are some distance away .
These are people who will not use Fazebook for any reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just doesn't make any sense.
People who are using a social network are using a social network because they want to be found - because they want an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people.
[chomp]Not so.
There are other social nets besides Fazebook, some of which employ privacy.
There are people who like to CHOOSE their online friends, and keep in touch with actual people who are some distance away.
These are people who will not use Fazebook for any reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543332</id>
	<title>Social Network Hardware?</title>
	<author>kiehlster</author>
	<datestamp>1268991180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I first looked at that, I thought we were suggesting a 'social networking console'.  That would certainly be interesting.  Buy a console to socialize on just like we buy a console to play games on.  It might be a possible way to break into the market, but I'm sure Facebook and everyone else already have plans for social hardware.  Google Wave and Android are good examples of that happening soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first looked at that , I thought we were suggesting a 'social networking console' .
That would certainly be interesting .
Buy a console to socialize on just like we buy a console to play games on .
It might be a possible way to break into the market , but I 'm sure Facebook and everyone else already have plans for social hardware .
Google Wave and Android are good examples of that happening soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first looked at that, I thought we were suggesting a 'social networking console'.
That would certainly be interesting.
Buy a console to socialize on just like we buy a console to play games on.
It might be a possible way to break into the market, but I'm sure Facebook and everyone else already have plans for social hardware.
Google Wave and Android are good examples of that happening soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544296</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>ksandom</author>
	<datestamp>1268995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I originally had a very similar reaction to this. So then I went and read TFA. So:

 - I still wouldn't spend money on social networking.
 - I wouldn't expect many people to spend money on social networking.

However
 - As a geek, I would probably buy this just so I could mess with it.
 - This is a very plausible step towards mesh networking. Equip it with wifi, and THAT might be a more feasible way to market this in the short term. At that point, traditional carriers would simply be there to bridge the gap between meshes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I originally had a very similar reaction to this .
So then I went and read TFA .
So : - I still would n't spend money on social networking .
- I would n't expect many people to spend money on social networking .
However - As a geek , I would probably buy this just so I could mess with it .
- This is a very plausible step towards mesh networking .
Equip it with wifi , and THAT might be a more feasible way to market this in the short term .
At that point , traditional carriers would simply be there to bridge the gap between meshes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I originally had a very similar reaction to this.
So then I went and read TFA.
So:

 - I still wouldn't spend money on social networking.
- I wouldn't expect many people to spend money on social networking.
However
 - As a geek, I would probably buy this just so I could mess with it.
- This is a very plausible step towards mesh networking.
Equip it with wifi, and THAT might be a more feasible way to market this in the short term.
At that point, traditional carriers would simply be there to bridge the gap between meshes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544576</id>
	<title>Possibly this is putting too fine a point on it</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1268996460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom</p></div></blockquote><p>
The monitoring is a technical feature of the code implementation.<br>
Freedom is a matter of configuration and usage.<br>
Sure, you can argue some overlap in a Venn diagram sort of way, but to argue cause/effect seems likely to blow by the really important mechanism/policy distinction.<br>
If we fret the government living in our underwear, and we should, then that also requires effort directed at the ballot box.<br>
Source code fixes are necessary, but not sufficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom The monitoring is a technical feature of the code implementation .
Freedom is a matter of configuration and usage .
Sure , you can argue some overlap in a Venn diagram sort of way , but to argue cause/effect seems likely to blow by the really important mechanism/policy distinction .
If we fret the government living in our underwear , and we should , then that also requires effort directed at the ballot box .
Source code fixes are necessary , but not sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet through their constant monitoring of users they do little to promote freedom
The monitoring is a technical feature of the code implementation.
Freedom is a matter of configuration and usage.
Sure, you can argue some overlap in a Venn diagram sort of way, but to argue cause/effect seems likely to blow by the really important mechanism/policy distinction.
If we fret the government living in our underwear, and we should, then that also requires effort directed at the ballot box.
Source code fixes are necessary, but not sufficient.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543480</id>
	<title>The most Rube Goldberg solution to a non problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since that guy who proposed blinding yourself to avoid cases of pinkeye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since that guy who proposed blinding yourself to avoid cases of pinkeye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since that guy who proposed blinding yourself to avoid cases of pinkeye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543250</id>
	<title>Free vs Free</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1268990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's just go with how the conversation with any non-geek person/friend/spouse/family member would both start and end: Wait, Facebook already is free. I don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just go with how the conversation with any non-geek person/friend/spouse/family member would both start and end : Wait , Facebook already is free .
I do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just go with how the conversation with any non-geek person/friend/spouse/family member would both start and end: Wait, Facebook already is free.
I don't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543260</id>
	<title>nobody would use it</title>
	<author>BHearsum</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suck it, you dumb slashdot filter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suck it , you dumb slashdot filter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck it, you dumb slashdot filter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546440</id>
	<title>I'm working on this now...</title>
	<author>seandiggity</author>
	<datestamp>1269008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On Sunday, I'll be releasing an alpha version of a LAMP "virtual appliance" that runs a customized WordPress MU/BuddyPress install I call <a href="http://foojbook.com/" title="foojbook.com" rel="nofollow">Foojbook</a> [foojbook.com].  The eventual hope is to get it running on <a href="http://www.tonidoplug.com/" title="tonidoplug.com" rel="nofollow">devices like this</a> [tonidoplug.com], as Eben Moglen explains in the interview.<br> <br>It'll also include <a href="http://shindig.apache.org/" title="apache.org" rel="nofollow">Apache Shindig</a> [apache.org] and the example Partuza social networking site that goes with it. BuddyPress doesn't yet support the OpenSocial stack (although it'll potentially be in <a href="http://buddypress.org/about/roadmap/" title="buddypress.org" rel="nofollow">the next release</a> [buddypress.org]), so I'm including Shindig/Partuza just in case people want to hack away at that. You will be able to either install Foojbook via the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso I'm releasing or run it inside a guest OS via QEMU, which I'll also bundle in a separate download targeted at thumbdrives.<br> <br>I contacted Eben about a month ago about Foojbook, and I intend to be a part of the effort he's putting together.  *However*, and I want to stress this, Foojbook is currently just an example of what's possible, and only allows you to set up a single profile for yourself...there is currently no sharing of data or any communication between separate Foojbook installs, since I don't know enough about network protocols and encryption to implement these pieces myself.<br> <br>There is still a lot of work to be done and, if you're interested in helping out, please contact me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On Sunday , I 'll be releasing an alpha version of a LAMP " virtual appliance " that runs a customized WordPress MU/BuddyPress install I call Foojbook [ foojbook.com ] .
The eventual hope is to get it running on devices like this [ tonidoplug.com ] , as Eben Moglen explains in the interview .
It 'll also include Apache Shindig [ apache.org ] and the example Partuza social networking site that goes with it .
BuddyPress does n't yet support the OpenSocial stack ( although it 'll potentially be in the next release [ buddypress.org ] ) , so I 'm including Shindig/Partuza just in case people want to hack away at that .
You will be able to either install Foojbook via the .iso I 'm releasing or run it inside a guest OS via QEMU , which I 'll also bundle in a separate download targeted at thumbdrives .
I contacted Eben about a month ago about Foojbook , and I intend to be a part of the effort he 's putting together .
* However * , and I want to stress this , Foojbook is currently just an example of what 's possible , and only allows you to set up a single profile for yourself...there is currently no sharing of data or any communication between separate Foojbook installs , since I do n't know enough about network protocols and encryption to implement these pieces myself .
There is still a lot of work to be done and , if you 're interested in helping out , please contact me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Sunday, I'll be releasing an alpha version of a LAMP "virtual appliance" that runs a customized WordPress MU/BuddyPress install I call Foojbook [foojbook.com].
The eventual hope is to get it running on devices like this [tonidoplug.com], as Eben Moglen explains in the interview.
It'll also include Apache Shindig [apache.org] and the example Partuza social networking site that goes with it.
BuddyPress doesn't yet support the OpenSocial stack (although it'll potentially be in the next release [buddypress.org]), so I'm including Shindig/Partuza just in case people want to hack away at that.
You will be able to either install Foojbook via the .iso I'm releasing or run it inside a guest OS via QEMU, which I'll also bundle in a separate download targeted at thumbdrives.
I contacted Eben about a month ago about Foojbook, and I intend to be a part of the effort he's putting together.
*However*, and I want to stress this, Foojbook is currently just an example of what's possible, and only allows you to set up a single profile for yourself...there is currently no sharing of data or any communication between separate Foojbook installs, since I don't know enough about network protocols and encryption to implement these pieces myself.
There is still a lot of work to be done and, if you're interested in helping out, please contact me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543704</id>
	<title>Re:Uhh...</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1268992740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the future several people will have access to those devices. They will hold a list of your friends, your messages, your pictures, your favorite music and a bunch load of other information. You'll be able to type messages and send them to your friends, or make voice... maybe even video chats. People will refer to them as cell-phones.</p><p>Now, what about adding a webserver and let you contacts have remote access to a limited amount of that information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future several people will have access to those devices .
They will hold a list of your friends , your messages , your pictures , your favorite music and a bunch load of other information .
You 'll be able to type messages and send them to your friends , or make voice... maybe even video chats .
People will refer to them as cell-phones.Now , what about adding a webserver and let you contacts have remote access to a limited amount of that information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future several people will have access to those devices.
They will hold a list of your friends, your messages, your pictures, your favorite music and a bunch load of other information.
You'll be able to type messages and send them to your friends, or make voice... maybe even video chats.
People will refer to them as cell-phones.Now, what about adding a webserver and let you contacts have remote access to a limited amount of that information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543274</id>
	<title>What about the networking site?</title>
	<author>lgarner</author>
	<datestamp>1268991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you've got all your personal data backed up from Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, whatever, and your accounts are closed.  Now what?  Does this thing actually run a usable social networking site?  And, even if it does, is it one that everyone will want to use?</p><p>I don't see this happening, ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 've got all your personal data backed up from Facebook , LinkedIn , MySpace , whatever , and your accounts are closed .
Now what ?
Does this thing actually run a usable social networking site ?
And , even if it does , is it one that everyone will want to use ? I do n't see this happening , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you've got all your personal data backed up from Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, whatever, and your accounts are closed.
Now what?
Does this thing actually run a usable social networking site?
And, even if it does, is it one that everyone will want to use?I don't see this happening, ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544880</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1268997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of those things will be true in 2-5 years when the Facebook fad is replaced by something else too, just like the people who still use MySpace.</p><p>Reality: Its a fad, theres nothing to do but wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of those things will be true in 2-5 years when the Facebook fad is replaced by something else too , just like the people who still use MySpace.Reality : Its a fad , theres nothing to do but wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of those things will be true in 2-5 years when the Facebook fad is replaced by something else too, just like the people who still use MySpace.Reality: Its a fad, theres nothing to do but wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31551224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31589708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1840238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31551224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31549578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31589708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31548530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31547846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31546120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31544176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31545438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1840238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1840238.31543502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
